State v. Richoux, 101 So. 3d 483

Defendant Michael Richoux was indicted on two counts of aggravated rape of a victim under thirteen, one count of sexual battery of a victim under thirteen, and one count of indecent behavior with a juvenile.
At trial, the jury found Richoux guilty on all four counts and the court sentenced him to life for each aggravated rape count, ten years for sexual battery, and seven years for indecent behavior, all without the possibility of probation, parole, or suspension.
The victim, aged 12 at trial, testified to years of alleged sexual abuse by Richoux, including oral contact and vaginal intercourse, and CAC interviews were admitted as evidence.
The defense moved for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and impeachment via a Facebook page; the trial court denied the motions and Richoux appealed.
The court noted an error patent concerning the penalty regime for sexual battery under the law in effect at the time and declined to correct the sentence sua sponte.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated rape	State contends victim’s testimony, plus CAC evidence, proves intercourse/oral contact.	State failed to prove sexual intercourse or oral-feenal contact beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence sufficient to prove aggravated rape under statute.
New trial based on newly discovered evidence	State contends evidence insufficiently new and not material.	Richoux argues newly discovered evidence warrants new trial.	Motion for new trial properly denied; evidence not meeting criteria.
Admission of other crimes evidence	State validly admitted prior sexual abuse evidence against Richoux.	Evidence of prior abuse improper and prejudicial.	Not preserved for review; if considered, harmless error.
Illegally lenient sentence for sexual battery	Sentence for sexual battery did not align with statutory penalties at time of offense.	Sentence should be corrected to reflect current law.	Court declined to correct; no contemporaneous objection raised.

State v. Hearold, 603 So.2d 731 (La. 1992) (sufficiency framework and standard of review)
State v. Dixon, 982 So.2d 146 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2008) (credible witness may sustain conviction)
State v. Gaddis, 973 So.2d 21 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2007) (victim testimony can establish oral sexual intercourse)
State v. Free, 643 So.2d 767 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1994) (new trial based on newly discovered evidence—stringent scrutiny)
State v. Saba, 14 So.2d 751 (La. 1943) (early standard for new-trial-type issues)
State v. Williams, 28 So.3d 357 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (harmless error standard for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Bazley, 60 So.3d 7 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (requisites for newly discovered evidence)
State v. Caffrey, 15 So.3d 198 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2009) (review of sentencing corrections and authority)
State v. Alvarez, 71 So.3d 1079 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2011) (contemporaneous objection requirement for trial errors)