111 So. 3d 45
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- William Ray Lilly was charged by bill of information with sexual battery under La. Rev. Stat. § 14:43.1; he was found guilty after a jury trial and sentenced to 35 years at hard labor without parole, plus sex-offender registration.
- Victim S.D. was four years old; defendant babysat her and her sibling; the alleged incident occurred in the kitchen with touching of the victim’s genital area.
- A recorded confession to Detective Davis was played for the jury; defendant later claimed the confession was coerced and that he was intoxicated at the time.
- Trial included defense witnesses about alcohol addiction and alleged coercion; the State presented medical and forensic witnesses supporting abuse.
- Defendant filed seven assignments of error including challenges to juror for cause, admissibility of jailhouse tapes, suppression of statements, and sufficiency of evidence; convictions and sentence were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Challenged for cause juror Miller was properly denied | Lilly argues Miller should have been dismissed for cause | State contends Miller could decide impartially | No abuse of discretion; Miller capable of impartial decision |
| Mandatory minimum sentencing information to jury | State sought to exclude jury’s knowledge of mandatory minimum | Penalty information should be allowed within range | No error; discretionary within range; no required instruction |
| Motion to suppress inculpatory statements | State maintained confession was voluntary after Miranda waiver | Defendant was intoxicated/ coerced; waiver not voluntary | Not involuntary; totality of circumstances supports voluntariness |
| Admissibility of jailhouse taped conversations with spouse | Conversations were admissible as party admissions and not confidential | Conversations were confidential spousal communications and unlawfully intercepted | Admissible as party admissions; spousal privilege not applicable; ESA interception argued but rejected |
| Responsive verdict: simple battery as lesser included offense | State argues sexual battery does not include simple battery as responsive verdict | Simple battery should be a responsive verdict under Schenck/Trackling | No responsive verdict; Trackling approved; no error in denial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kang, 859 So.2d 649 (La. 2003) (prejudice presumed when challenge for cause denied and all peremptories exhausted)
- State v. Martin, 558 So.2d 654 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1990) (trial court has broad discretion on challenges for cause)
- State v. White, 399 So.2d 172 (La. 1981) (punishment range and jury need not be told the penalty except in mandatory cases)
- State v. Washington, 367 So.2d 4 (La. 1978) (mandatory penalties require jury instruction when applicable)
- State v. Trackling, 921 So.2d 79 (La. 2006) (Trackling rejects simple battery as responsive verdict to sexual battery)