State v. Marrero, 92 So. 3d 21

Defendant Albert J. Marrero, Jr. was charged by bill of information with aggravated incest under LSA-R.S. 14:78.1.
He was tried by jury and found guilty of the responsive offense of attempted aggravated incest under LSA-R.S. 14:27 and 14:78.1.
Victim was Marrero’s stepdaughter; the alleged acts occurred when she was between 13 and 18 years old, with many incidents occurring while they were alone.
The State proved a pattern of touching and sexual conduct beginning with “chicken” games and escalating to kissing, touching of thighs/breasts, and oral sex; the acts reportedly continued until the victim reached 18.
At trial the victim testified to the sequence and frequency of incidents; the defense presented witnesses and denials, including the defendant’s own testimony and a cleric privilege ruling.
The jury ultimately convicted Marrero of attempted aggravated incest, and the trial court sentenced him to five years’ hard labor; he appeals asserting insufficiency of evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted aggravated incest	State argues evidence, including victim’s testimony and age difference, supports elements.	Marrero contends proof failed to establish specific intent and acts of Subsection B.	Sufficient evidence; Jackson v. Virginia standard met; specific intent inferred from conduct.
Ineffective assistance—motion to quash/bill of particulars	Defense failure to object to broad bill did not prejudice prosecution’s case.	Failure to seek bill clarifications impeded defense and risked double jeopardy.	No reversible error; lack of prejudice shown; counsel’s performance not proven deficient.
Clergyman’s privilege under LSA-C.E. art. 511	Privilege properly applied to communications between victim and minister; admissibility limited.	Privilege should not bar impeachment or relevant testimony.	Privilege correctly applied; no prejudice; defense waived by failure to object, but ruling stands.
Propriety of prosecutorial questioning about pornography counseling	Questioning immaterial and potentially prejudicial; relevant to credibility.	Line of questioning was improper and prejudicial; counsel should have objected.	No reversible error; under Strickland, effect on verdict not shown; strategy considerations allowed.

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
State v. Ordodi, 946 So.2d 654 (La. 2006) (objective sufficiency and credibility weighing on appeal)
State v. Patomo, 822 So.2d 141 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2002) (circumstantial evidence and innocence hypothesis rejection)
State v. Captville, 448 So.2d 676 (La. 1984) (guides analysis of circumstantial evidence and reasonable doubt)
State v. James, 849 So.2d 574 (La.App. 1 Cir. 2003) (analysis of specific intent and admissibility in sexual-offense case)
State v. Dabney, 842 So.2d 326 (La. 2003) (credibility assessment and appellate deference to jury verdict)
State ex rel. Graffagnino v. King, 436 So.2d 559 (La.1983) (general credibility and appellate review principles)
State v. Calloway, 1 So.3d 417 (La.2009) (reaffirmation of appellate deference to jury credibility findings)
United States v. Pugliese, 153 F.2d 497 (2d Cir. 1945) (limitation on procedural improprieties in questioning)