Opinion
24-K-398
08-26-2024
STATE OF LOUISIANA v. ROBERTO LOPEZ IN RE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Applying for Supervisory writ from the Twenty-Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana, Directed to the Honorable E. Adrian Adams, Division "G", Number 21-5762
Panel composed of Judges Marc E. Johnson, Scott U.Schlegel, and Timothy S. Marcel
WRIT GRANTED; RULING VACATED
Relator, the State of Louisiana, seeks review of the 24th Judicial District Court's August 26, 2024 ruling denying its Motion in Limine to exclude the presentation of evidence of a subsequent accusation made by the victim that another adult male in another jurisdiction committed crimes against the victim involving inappropriate sexual conduct.
As a general rule, a party may attack the credibility of a witness by examining him or her concerning any matter having a reasonable tendency to disprove the truthfulness of his or her testimony. La. C.E. art. 607(C). In cases involving sexually assaultive behavior, however, La. C.E. art. 412 bars the introduction of evidence of the victim's past sexual behavior, except under limited circumstances as set forth in the Article. Nevertheless, the Louisiana Supreme Court has held that Article 412 is “inapplicable in sexual assault cases where defendant seeks to question witnesses regarding the victim's prior false allegations concerning sexual behavior for impeachment purposes.” State v. Smith, 98-2045 (La. 9/8/99), 743 So.2d 199, 203.
In considering a motion in limine seeking to admit or exclude such evidence, the trial judge must evaluate the evidence presented to “determine whether reasonable jurors could find, based on the evidence presented by defendant, that the victim had made prior false accusations.” Id. The Smith holding contemplates an evidentiary hearing, at which the defendant introduces evidence to the trial court
for a determination as to whether that evidence may be admitted or excluded under the applicable evidentiary rules.State v. Eisert, 16-338 (La.App. 5 Cir. 6/14/16), 252 So.3d 987, 989, writ denied, 16-1134 (La. 6/17/16), 192 So.3d 764.
On the showing made, the writ application is granted. A review of the court record reflects that an evidentiary hearing did not occur. Pursuant to Smith, supra, the defendant is required to introduce evidence for the trial court to consider when determining "whether reasonable jurors could find...that the victim had made prior false accusations" before ruling on its admissibility. See Eisert, supra. Accordingly, the district court's ruling is vacated and the matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.
MEJ
SUS
TSM