Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. Larry GOUTRO, Jr.
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1984-01-16
Citations: 444 So. 2d 615
Docket Number: No. 82-KA-2117
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. Larry GOUTRO, Jr.
Judges: CALOGERO, J., concurs with reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 444
Pages: 615–618

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. Larry GOUTRO, Jr.
No. 82-KA-2117.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Jan. 16, 1984.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Morgan J. Gou-deau, III, Dist. Atty., Robert Brinkman, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.
Charles R. Browning, Livonia, for defendant-appellant.

Opinion:
LEMMON, Justice.
This is an appeal from a conviction of aggravated rape and a sentence to life imprisonment at hard labor. The sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony of a witness who had been subjected to hypnosis for the purpose of enhancing her recollection of the events surrounding the crime. Since the state proved that the hypnosis did not affect the witness' testimony, in that the witness after undergoing hypnosis did not recall any facts other than those she had related to the police prior to hypnosis, this case is controlled by State v. Wren, 425 So.2d 756 (La.1983), in which this court rejected a per se exclusion based on the fact of hypnosis alone.
The victim was an eight-year old girl. Because the child's mother was to be away from home for several days, the child was left on March 5, 1981 in the care of the mother's sister, Margie Fruge, who at the time was living with defendant. The rape (or rapes) occurred during the ensuing four-day period, during which Ms. Fruge and defendant consumed considerable amounts of alcohol and drugs.
The rape was reported to the chief of police (the victim's uncle) during the early morning hours of March 9 by another sister of Ms. Fruge. The chief searched the town and found the child with defendant and Ms. Fruge in defendant's car. He rushed the child, who was screaming in pain, to the hospital.
When initially questioned, both Ms. Fruge and the child blamed Joseph Smith (a fictitious name for a cousin of the child) for the child's rape-related injuries. However, each quickly corrected this accusation, stating that defendant had ordered them to blame Smith if the vaginal injury came to the attention of the authorities. The same day, Ms. Fruge gave a detailed written statement to the police, in which she asserted that defendant had given the child a Quaalude and had instructed her to undress the child and to "finger" her in preparation for him. She added that defendant told her on one occasion during the four-day period that he had "stuck his finger in her [the child] and a little bit of his thing" and on another occasion that he had "put it all the way in that night".
Prior to trial, Ms. Fruge was subjected to hypnosis by a police officer who had received some training in hypnotic techniques and who had been performing hypnosis for about a year. During the hypnotic session, according to the testimony of the officer, Ms. Fruge related the same events that she had described in her statement, but clarified the times and dates of these events, overcoming to some extent her previous difficulty in recalling times and dates.
At trial Ms. Fruge testified as follows: The child had fallen asleep after defendant gave her a Quaalude. Defendant then asked her "to finger her . to open it up so that it wouldn't be so hard for him to get it in". Defendant later took the child to the bedroom, announcing his intention to have intercourse with the child. The next day she found defendant naked on one bed and the child clothed in panties and a T-shirt on the other bed in the room. Defendant told her that he had raped the child vaginally and anally. She later related this to her sister, who reported the incident to the police. Throughout the testimony, however, Ms. Fruge admitted that she could not remember much of the four-day period.
Because Ms. Fruge's trial testimony was more confused and less clear than her initial written statement, the hypnotic session obviously did not produce any additional recollection of details. Therefore, as in Wren, this case does not involve the question of the admissibility of hypnotically-induced testimony, nor does it present any danger of "confabulation" or "undue suggestion". There is not even the problem of a possible "cementing" of the witness' memory which renders cross-examination ineffective to delve into possible inconsistencies or to reveal faulty recollection. Furthermore, the witness here was a close friend of defendant who testified concerning events which transpired in her presence, and there was no need to probe her memory on questions of identity or questions of the nature of the sexual abuse of the child. The sole object of the hypnosis was to clarify the time sequence of the events.
Adhering to Wren, we conclude that the trial court did not err in permitting the witness to testify.
Accordingly, defendant's conviction and sentence are affirmed.
CALOGERO, J., concurs with reasons.
LEMMON, J., assigns additional reasons.
. The child also testified at trial, but did not remember anything that happened after defendant gave her a pill for her headache, except that she awoke hurting "at my bottom". She further testified that defendant threatened to kill her if she told anyone about his actions and instructed her to say that her cousin had "done it to her".
. Another witness, Cathy Dixon, who was with Ms. Fruge, defendant and the victim at some point during the period, testified that the child told her defendant had "done it to the front and to the back".
.Mrs. Fruge was initially indicted along with defendant, but she agreed to testify against him in return for a promise of use immunity and a promise that she would be prosecuted only as an accessory after the fact.