State Of Louisiana v. Anthony J. Tipton

Supreme Court of Louisiana
October 16, 2021
Second Deputy Clerk of Court
For the Court
The Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana
STATE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ANTHONY J. TIPTON
No.2021-KK-01478
_ _
_ _ _ _
I
N RE: State of Louisiana - Applicant Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory Writ,
Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Number(s) 06- 16-0468,
Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Number(s) 2021 KW 1133;
_ _ _ _ _ _
October 16, 2021
Writ application granted. See per curiam.
JBM
JLW
SJC
JTG
WJC
PDG
10/16/2021 "See News Release 042 for any Concurrences and/or Dissents."

S
UPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
No
. 2021-KK-01478
STA
TE OF LOUISIANA
VS.
ANTHONY J. TIPTON
O
n Supervisory Writ to the 19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge
PE
R CURIAM:
Writ granted. In a prosecution for sexual offense(s) committed against a child,
expert testimony of general characteristics that would explain delays in reporting,
inconsistent reports, omissions of details, reluctance to testify, demeanor, and
recantations is generally admissible provided that it meets the requireme nts of the
Code of Evidence and does not invade the jury’s province of determining credibility
or otherwise violate the prohibitions contained in State v. Foret, 628 So.2d 1116 (La.
1993); State v. Chauvin, 2002-1188 (La. 5/20/03), 846 So.2d 697. Here, the district
court in a pretrial hearing found the expert to be qualified and that the underlying
methodology is scientifically reliable under the Daubert -Foret standard. See
generally Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct.
2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The district court also found that the expert’s
testimony on delayed reporting will be relevant at trial and that it satisfies La.C.E.
art. 702(A)(1)–(3).
However, the district court ruled that the expert testimony on delayed
reporting would not be admissible at trial because it did not satisfy La.C.E. art.
702(A)(4) (“The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts
of the case”) because the expert had not interviewed the victim. The district court
10/16/21

erred. The fact that the expert did not personally examine the victim in this case does
not detract from her expertise and ability to testify generally about delayed reporting.
Cf. State v. Thomas , 2019-1027 (La. App. 1 Cir. 2/21/20), 297 So.3d 966; State v.
Torregano, 03 -1335 (La. App. 5 Cir. 5/11/04), 875 So.2d 842. The testimony
presented at the pretrial hearing sufficed to pass the Daubert -Foret threshold. At
trial, however, the admissibility of this testimony will be subject to reexamination in
conjunction with the other testimony and evidence introduced, in light of which the
balancing test provided in La.C.E. art. 403 can be applied. The State should proceed
with care, mindful of the constraints imposed in Foret and Chauvin, to not permit
expert testimony to impermissibly bolster witness credibility or invade the province
of the jury. The matter is remanded to the district court for further proceedings
consistent with the views expressed herein.
REMANDED