State Of Louisiana v. Anthony J. Tipton

STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 2021 KW 1133

VERSUS

ANTHONY J. TIPTON OCTOBER 12, 2021

In Re: State of Louisiana, applying for supervisory writs,

19th Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton
Rouge, No. 06- 16- 0468.

BEFORE: GUIDRY, MCCLENDON, AND WELCH, JJ.

WRIT DENIED. See La. Code Evid. art. 702( A)( 4), which

requires that "[ t] he expert has reliably applied the principles
and methods to the facts of the case."

JEW

Guidry, J., concurs and would deny the writ application on

the showing made.

McClendon, J., dissents and would grant the writ

application. In its ruling, the trial court acknowledged,

there' s a fact in issue here that [ the expert] could testify
to." " The determination of whether an expert' s testimony is
admissible requires an assessment of ` whether that reasoning or
methodology properly can be applied to the facts in issue."
Blair v. Coney, 2019- 00795 ( La. 4/ 3/ 20), 2020 WL 1675992, reh' g
denied, 2019- 00795 ( La. 7/ 9/ 20), 298 So. 3d 168. Expert
testimony can assist a jury in understanding the significance of
a child -witness' s demeanor, inconsistent reports, delayed
disclosure, reluctance to testify, and recantation. An expert

witness can explain to the jury that a child -witness' s seemingly
abnormal behavior such as delayed reporting, inconsistent
statements, and recantation is normal for children who have been
sexually abused and can also dispel jurors' inaccurate
perceptions allowing them to better assess a child -witness' s

testimony. State v. Pagano, 2020- 1073 ( La. App. 1st Cir.
10/ 4/ 21), 2020 WL 4549134. Accordingly, I would find that under
the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the trial
court erred in its application of La. Code Evid. art. 702( 4).

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TY CLERK OF COU T
FOR THE COURT