Court Opinion

ID: 9778275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:57:55.038003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:06.520179
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In the motion for rehearing, Guidry contends that this Court erred in finding that there was no evidence that the witness Johnson had been drinking alcohol on the day that the child reported the alleged acts of Guidry. Guidry cites to two portions of testimony to establish that Johnson had been drinking alcohol on the occasion in question. The first cited portion is testimony of the child:
Q. Okay. Was there anything unusual about him that day?
A. No, sir.
Q. He looked to you like he had complete control of his facilities (sic), is that right?
A. (No audible response).
Q. He listened to your story?
A. Yes, sir.
This excerpt from the original trial mentions nothing about alcohol, and the only criticism that might be made of the attorney is that he could have insisted on an audible response.
The second excerpt cited by Guidry was the testimony of the attorney Thompson on the motion for rehearing:
Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Thompson, in [J.G.’s] testimony, I believe there was some questioning as to whether Ricky Johnson had complete control of his facilities (sic), is the way I believe it was put. Do you recall that at all?
A. There was some questioning .. are you referring to alcoholism, or using alcohol, is that correct? That’s the only thing I recall about it, there was some question as to whether he had been using alcohol that day.
*388The most that this testimony adds at rehearing was that there was some question as to whether Johnson had been using alcohol that day. It would not have been beneficial to the case unless it could have been shown by evidence that Johnson was using alcohol to the extent that it impaired his memory of what happened on that occasion. Evidence that there was a question in the mind of the defense attorney about this matter does not demonstrate that Johnson was actually under the influence of alcohol on the day in question.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.