State v. Wright, 79 So. 3d 309

Defendant, Michael Wright, was convicted by jury of aggravated incest and sentenced to 18 years' imprisonment at hard labor.
The State admitted evidence under La. C.E. art. 412.2 regarding BC's age (a 14-year-old when involved with Wright) to show lustful disposition toward children.
BK, Wright’s seventeen-year-old son, testified to repeated sexual abuse by Wright and described domestic violence in Wright’s home.
The trial court initially ruled BC’s age evidence inadmissible due to dissimilarities; later allowed questioning to explore credibility and motive, partially relaxing prior ruling.
The court of appeal reversed and vacated, finding error in admitting BC’s age evidence; Supreme Court grants certiorari to reconsider and remands.
The Court holds BC’s age evidence is admissible under Article 412.2, vacates the court of appeal’s ruling, and remands for consideration of remaining issues.
There is no physical evidence; the case largely turns on victim and defendant credibility and the admissibility of prior acts evidence under Article 412.2.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Article 412.2 admissibility applies to evidence involving different-gender victims	State advocates admissibility for lustful disposition regardless of gender	Wright contends dissimilar acts negate similarity for Article 412.2	Admissible; gender differences do not bar admissibility under 412.2.
Whether BC’s age evidence was properly admitted to show lustful disposition	State asserts relevance to complete the story and credibility	Wright argues evidence is unfairly prejudicial and dissimilar	Admissible; probative value outweighs prejudice under 403 and 412.2.
Whether admission of BC’s age evidence requires reversal given potential mistrial history	State contends no reversible error due to limiting instructions	Mistrial motions should have been granted given prejudice	No reversible error; the trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence.
Whether the court of appeal should remand for other issues after addressing 412.2	Court of appeal erred in vacating conviction	Remand for other assigned errors	Remand to Court of Appeal for consideration of remaining issues.

State v. Crochet, 931 So.2d 1083 (La. 2006) (sex acts with children admissible to show lustful disposition; gender differences not controlling)
State v. Williams, 830 So.2d 984 (La. 2002) (legislative history of 412.2 and lustful disposition concept)
State v. Rose, 949 So.2d 1236 (La. 2007) (403 balancing of probative value vs. prejudice in admissibility)
State v. Cosey, 779 So.2d 675 (La. 2000) (abuse of discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
State v. Merritt, 877 So.2d 1079 (La. App. 5th Cir. 2004) (application of 412.2 to prior acts evidence)