167 So. 3d 15
La. Ct. App.2014Background
- Defendant Darrell Tillery was convicted by a 12-person jury in Jefferson Parish on four counts: three counts of aggravated rape and one count of sexual battery involving three different juveniles.
- The State sought and obtained an oral amendment to count three’s offense date mid-trial, changing the period from 1992 to 1993–1994, arguing the 1992 date was an oversight and not essential to the offense.
- Defendant moved for mistrial alleging prejudice from the late amendment; the trial court denied the mistrial and granted the amendment.
- Witnesses included B.S. (rape victim), D.I. (count three), and K.W. (count four), with testimony about long-running abuse and multiple corroborating statements; expert Dr. Neha Mehta testified on child sexual abuse dynamics.
- Defendant was sentenced to three consecutive life terms (counts 1, 3, 4) without parole, and ten years on count 2, all to be served concurrently; life terms were without parole/suspension and sex-offender registry for life.
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions and sentences but remanded to correct the uniform commitment order and related clerical errors in the record concerning dates, wording of the sexual battery charge, and other compliance issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the amended date in count three prejudiced defense | State argues date isn’t essential; amendment proper | Tillery asserts prejudice by expanding time frame | Amendment proper; no prejudice shown |
| Whether Dr. Mehta’s expert testimony was improperly admitted | Mehta’s expertise aided jury understanding | Waived objection; potential prejudice not shown | Waived; no reversal on this basis |
| Constitutionality of non-unanimous juries as to counts 1 and 4 | Statutory framework valid; no contemporaneous objection | Non-unanimous verdicts unconstitutional | Issue procedurally barred; no relief; verdicts stand |
| Whether indictment naming victims by name was required or harmless error | Short-form indictment permissible; discovery provided | Names missing harmed notice | Harmless error; not prejudicial given discovery and trial testimony |
| Whether the indictment and commitment orders contained fatal errors of form or substance requiring reversal | Errors patent; some are harmless; others require correction | Record inconsistencies and lack of precise form | Remand for correction of commitment and related errors; otherwise affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Sharp, 321 So.2d 381 (La.1975) (amendment of form defects permissible; date nonessential element)
- State v. Hubbard, 279 So.2d 177 (La.1973) (date not essential to offense; amendment allowed)
- State v. Pickett, 259 So.2d 307 (La.1972) (date not essential element; amendment proper)
- State v. Martin, 233 So.2d 898 (La.1970) (amendments to bill of information permissible for form defects)