Opinion ID: 1960124
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The Lustful Disposition Exception

Text: As the majority correctly notes, in cases involving adult victims, other crimes evidence has been inadmissible in Louisiana to prove intent or negate accident in cases of aggravated rape. Moore, 278 So.2d at 781; McArthur, 719 So.2d at 1039-40. In holding the evidence inadmissible, we distinguished Miller by noting that the lustful disposition exception can only be applied in certain cases involving sex crimes against children. McArthur, 719 So.2d at 1040. In child sexual abuse cases, the courts of appeal have applied the lustful disposition exception for both general and specific intent crimes, including aggravated rape of children, although the specific enumerated factor of La.Code Evid. 404(B), such as motive, intent, plan, or system, has varied in classification. [1] As we recognized in Miller, Louisiana has followed the national trend towards broader admissibility of other crimes evidence in cases involving alleged sexual abuse of minor children. 718 So.2d at 962; see PUGH ET AL, HANDBOOK ON LOUISIANA EVIDENCE LAW 328 (2000). We discussed the special issues raised by child victims of sex crimes: Child sexual abuse cases raise special concerns for the judicial system not present in other criminal cases. Frequently, in cases involving the sexual abuse of children, the offense takes place in secret, the victim is young, vulnerable, and reluctant to testify, and there is often no physical or other evidence the abuse took place. As a result, special laws and rules have been passed to address the unique concerns presented in these types of cases. Miller, 718 So.2d at 962. In this case, the majority agreed with the Fifth Circuit's attempt to distinguish this Court's decision in Miller on the basis that an essential element of the crime, namely specific intent, was not at issue in this case. I disagree with the categorical distinction on the basis of specific versus general intent crimes for the purpose of applying the lustful disposition exception. The majority explains that we must await the legislature's explicit amendment of La.Code Evid. 404 to allow admissibility of other crimes evidence under a lustful disposition exception. In reaching this conclusion, the majority relies on La. 15:445-446 for the proposition that other crimes evidence is only admissible to prove intent, knowledge or system. However, under that statute, this Court has historically broadened existing statutory criteria for admitting other crimes evidence. Certain jurisprudential exceptions to the general bar against other crimes evidence evolved while interpreting articles La. R.S. 15:445-446, the predecessors to La.Code Evid. 404, on which the majority relies so heavily for its reasoning. This Court discussed these exceptions in State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475, 487-88 (La.1983): Aside from the related offenses admissible as part of the res gestae and convictions admissible for impeachment purposes, Louisiana statutes provide for only three instances where other crimes evidence is substantially relevant such as to qualify as an exception to the general rule of exclusion: acts relevant to show intent, knowledge, or system. La. R.S. 15:445, 446. State v. Harris, supra, [ 64775 (La. 1980), 383 So.2d 1]. Admission of another crime committed by the same system as the offense charged might also be relevant to show the identity of the defendant as the offender. State v. Talbert, 416 So.2d 97 (La.1982); State v. Hatcher, 372 So.2d 1024 (La.1979); State v. Harris, supra; State v. Waddles, 336 So.2d 810 (La. 1976). Other jurisprudentially recognized exceptions include other crimes evidence introduced to show motive, State v. Lafleur, 398 So.2d 1074 (La. 1981), State v. Sutfield, supra , State v. Dowdy, 217 La. 773, 47 So.2d 496 (1950), prior sex crimes committed against the same prosecutrix, State v. Acliese, 403 So.2d 665 (La.1981) and cases cited therein, and evidence of criminal acts of the accused constituting admissions by conduct intended to obstruct justice or avoid punishment for the present crime, State v. Burnette and Granger, 353 So.2d 989 (La.1977). The comments to art. 404 provide: (k) The first sentence of Paragraph B of this Article is not intended to change the law. See State v. Prieur, 277 So.2d 126 (La.1973); Art. 1103, infra. Although the second sentence of Paragraph B contains a longer list of purposes for which evidence of other crimes is admissible than that found in former R.S. 15:445-446, it generally accords with the rules actually applied by the Louisiana courts. State v. Kahey, 436 So.2d 475 (La.1983). The comments to art. 404(B) indicate an intent to apply both the statutory and jurisprudential exceptions as created by Louisiana courts while interpreting former articles 15:445-446. The majority's mechanical application of La.Code Evid. 404(B) ignores the jurisprudential lustful disposition exception that has existed since before Moore. The application of a lustful disposition exception in child abuse cases has been applied as far back as 1938 in State v. Cupit, 189 La. 509, 179 So. 837 (1938), followed in our courts of appeal, explicitly affirmed in cases involving child victims of sexual abuse by this Court in Miller, and acknowledged as an exception to article 404(B) itself in McArthur. [2] Thus, a reasonable interpretation of 404(B) and its accompanying comments suggests that the legislature intended to continue application of the jurisprudentially created lustful disposition exception under the expanded list of factors provided by the enactment of 404(B). [3] The majority's reasoning also departs from the explicit rule at the federal level as well as several state courts considering the issue. [4] A review of other jurisdictions illustrates that the majority of states follow the lustful disposition exception for other crimes evidence in sexual offense cases, although the implementation of the exception varies in scope. See Thomas J. Reed, Reading Gaol Revisited: Admission of Uncharged Misconduct Evidence in Sex Offender Cases, 21 AM.J.CRIM. L. 127, 168 (1993). In cases involving sexual abuse of children, state courts construe the exception broadly, allowing the admission of prior sexual acts to show the defendant's general sexual disposition. [5] In the absence of any special statutory rules targeted for prosecution of sexual assault involving children, the general rules in La. Code Evid. art. 404(B) governing evidence of other similar crimes or acts are shaped by the particular policy concerns regarding crimes against children. Our legislature has indicated its intent to protect children in the first instance, relaxing the evidentiary rules to accommodate the particular nature of the child victim in cases of hearsay admissibility and right of confrontation issues. [6] Consider the anomaly created in restricting application of the lustful disposition exception to specific intent crimes. With a bright line rule of specific intent as the requirement for admissibility in child sexual assault cases, other crimes evidence becomes admissible in attempted aggravated rape, or charges of molestation of a juvenile, but cannot be offered in the more grievous crime of aggravated rape of a child under 12. Thus, defendants who fail to accomplish sexual intercourse with the child are more likely to be faced with evidence of their prior sexual acts at trial; while those who succeed in achieving sexual penetration of a child face no questions of their prior sexual behavior, regardless of relevance. Surely the legislature did not intend that result when endorsing the application of statutory and jurisprudential exceptions to inadmissibility of other crimes evidence when enacting La.Code Evid. 404(B). As this Court recognized in McArthur, the holding from Miller stands for the proposition that evidence of lustful disposition is applicable in cases involving sexual abuse of children, without the requirement that intent necessarily be at issue. Additionally, the evidence in this case fits within one of the 404(B) factors, is independently relevant, and more probative than prejudicial.