State of Louisiana Versus Donald Warden

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-K-353

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

DONALD WARDEN COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

August 17, 2025

Linda Tran
First Deputy Clerk

IN RE DONALD WARDEN

APPLYING FOR SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE TWENTY-NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT,
PARISH OF ST CHARLES, STATE OF LOUISIANA, DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE [CONNIE M.
AUCOIN, DIVISION "C", NUMBER 20,570

Panel composed of Judges Jude G. Gravois,
Marc E. Johnson, and Scott U. Schlegel

WRIT DENIED

Relator/defendant, Donald Warden, seeks this Court’s expedited supervisory
review of the trial court’s July 22, 2025 rulings that granted the motion in limine
filed by respondent, the State of Louisiana. The trial in this case is currently set for
August 19, 2025.

In its motion in limine, the State sought to preclude relator from introducing
evidence (text messages and photographs) and testimony regarding alleged
physical abuse of the victims or their juvenile sibling by their father, C.W. The
State specified that it sought to exclude text messages between relator’s wife, who
is also the victims’ grandmother, and the victims’ mother. It stated that the
messages, which were part of Dr. Danny Roussel’s expert report,1 discussed 1)
physical discipline of the children by C.W., and 2) the victims’ mother possibly
filing for a divorce from him. The State argued that admitting the text messages
would shift the focus away from the charges. Additionally, it sought to exclude a
photograph referenced in Dr. Roussel’s report of the victims, wherein one of them
was pointing her middle finger up. Finally, the State sought to exclude another
photograph referenced in Dr. Roussel’s report, which allegedly showed bruising on
the victims’ brother that the State asserted the defense would allege C.W. caused.
The State contended both photographs were irrelevant. It argued that none of the
specified evidence of alleged abuse by the victims’ father was 1) rationally

1
Dr. Roussel has been excluded as a defense expert.

25-K-353

connected to the charged sexual abuse by defendant, 2) a potential defense, or 3) a
motive by the victims to fabricate the charges.

In opposition, relator mainly argued that evidence of C.W.’s alleged physical
abuse of his children was exculpatory. He contended that the evidence at issue will
show that the children lived in perpetual fear of their father and they would say or
do anything not to incur his wrath. Relator explained that the text messages show
that C.W. physically and psychologically abused the children. Relator also
asserted that the photographs showed the children’s injuries, reflecting 1) the
State’s inadequate investigation, 2) that the children were prisoners in their home,
and 3) that the children feared C.W.’s wrath. He concluded that the State was
repeatedly trying to exclude exculpatory evidence and the State’s motion should
have been dismissed.

A hearing on the State’s motion in limine was held on July 22, 2025. The
trial court granted the motion. As to the text messages, the trial judge found that
they were too prejudicial and would only serve to inflame the jury. The trial judge
further explained that the text messages did not serve as the basis for the opinions
of defense expert, Dr. Kristen Luscher, a clinical psychologist, and recalled that
Dr. Luscher’s report had previously been heavily reviewed and addressed. The
judge stated that the text messages are not referenced as a basis for Dr. Luscher’s
opinion in her report. As to the photographs, the trial judge stated that the
photograph of one of the victims pointing her middle finger up was not relevant,
and to the extent it could be relevant, it was too prejudicial. The judge then found
that the photograph of the victim’s brother was irrelevant because he was not a
victim in this matter. The judge further explained that, even if it were relevant in
that relator argues that the fear of abuse triggered a false claim, the photograph
would be too prejudicial and would only serve to inflame the jury.

A defendant’s right to present a defense is guaranteed by the Sixth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, § 16 of the Louisiana
Constitution. This right, however, does not necessitate that a trial court allow the
introduction of evidence that is inadmissible, irrelevant, or has so little probative
value that it is substantially outweighed by other legitimate considerations in the
administration of justice. State v. Perilloux, 21-448 (La. App. 5 Cir. 12/20/23),
378 So.3d 280, 308-09, writ denied, 24-104 (La. 9/4/24), 391 So.3d 1055.

La. C.E. art. 401 states, “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any
tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be
without the evidence.” All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise
provided by law. La. C.E. art. 402. In deciding the issue of relevancy, the trial
court must determine whether the evidence bears a rational connection to the facts
at issue in the case. State v. Battle, 23-272 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/17/24), 391 So.3d
130, 148, writ denied, 24-912 (La. 1/14/25), 398 So.3d 649.

Even if relevant, “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues,
or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, or waste of time.” La.
C.E. art. 403.

The determination concerning relevancy of evidence is within the discretion
of the trial judge whose rulings will not be disturbed in the absence of an abuse of
discretion. State v. Salvant, 24-205 (La. App. 5 Cir. 3/19/25), 411 So.3d 74, 98.

2

Upon review, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in
excluding the text messages and photographs in question. As to relevancy, we
agree with the trial court’s concern as to whether the evidence in question bears a
rational connection or basis to the facts at issue in the case. Further, the trial court
performed the balancing test required under La. C.E. art. 403 and found that, even
if this evidence was relevant, the prejudicial effect of the evidence would
substantially outweigh its probative value. On the showing made, we find no basis
upon which to disturb the rulings of the trial court. Finally, in the event of a
conviction, defendant will have an adequate remedy on appeal.

Accordingly, this writ application is denied.

Gretna, Louisiana, this 17th day of August, 2025.

JGG
SUS

3

STATE OF LOUISIANA NO. 25-K-353

VERSUS FIFTH CIRCUIT

DONALD WARDEN COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF LOUISIANA

JOHNSON, J., DISSENTS, IN PART, WITH REASONS

I, respectfully, dissent in part from the majority disposition on the issue of

whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding the text messages

between the victims’ grandmother and their mother. In this matter, Relator,

Donald Warden, asserts that the theory of his defense at trial will be that the

victims falsely accused him of sexual abuse because there was a possibility he

would disclose a particular event to their father, C.W.; and, the victims were in

perpetual fear of their father and would say anything avoid C.W.’s wrath. The

text messages at issue show the family dynamics in the victims’ home, as their

mother described certain instances to their grandmother. The trial court excluded

those text messages on the basis that they were too prejudicial and would only

serve to inflame the jury. The trial court also found that the text messages did not

serve as the basis for Dr. Kristen Luscher’s opinion.2

Both the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I,

§ 16 of the Louisiana Constitution guarantee a criminal defendant the right to

present a defense. State v. Hicks, 16-462 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/8/17), 213 So.3d 458,

465, writ denied, 17-445 (La. 11/13/17), 230 So.3d 205. This right does not

require a trial court to permit the introduction of evidence that is inadmissible,

irrelevant, or has so little probative value that it is substantially outweighed by

2
Dr. Luscher has been accepted as an expert clinical psychologist in the areas of sexual victimization and
perpetration, psychological assessment, and child abuse.

25-K-353

other legitimate considerations in the administration of justice. Id. The trial court

is afforded great discretion in evidentiary rulings and, absent a clear abuse of that

discretion, rulings regarding the relevance and admissibility of evidence will not

be disturbed. Id.

La. C.E. art. 401 states, “‘Relevant evidence’ means evidence having any

tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the

determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be

without the evidence.” All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise

provided by law. La. C.E. art. 402. In deciding the issue of relevancy, the trial

court must determine whether the evidence bears a rational connection to the facts

at issue in the case. State v. Battle, 23-272 (La. App. 5 Cir. 6/17/24), 391 So.3d

130, 148, writ denied, 24-912 (La. 1/14/25), 398 So.3d 649.

After review, I find that the trial court clearly abused its discretion in

granting the State’s motion in limine by excluding the text messages between the

victims’ grandmother and the victims’ mother. The text messages bear a rational

connection to the facts at issue and are relevant to Relator’s presentation of his

defense that the physical abuse in the victims’ family dynamic led to the victims’

allegations of sexual abuse against him.3 The probative value of the text messages

outweigh the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the

jury.

At this juncture, I further find that the trial court’s conclusion that the text

messages did not serve as a basis for Dr. Luscher’s opinion to be erroneous. While

Dr. Roussel’s report has been previously found inadmissible, the text messages at

issue were listed in the “Collateral Record Review” of Dr. Luscher’s report, which

has not been stricken in its entirety. Questioning at trial will reveal the extent of

3
As mentioned by the trial court, I note that references to the victims’ past sexual behavior is prohibited by La. C.E.
art. 412.
2

Dr. Luscher’s consideration of the text messages in forming her opinion.

Excluding evidence that Dr. Luscher relied upon for her opinion would

unjustifiably limit her testimony and Relator’s defense. As for the photographs, I

agree with the majority disposition.

Accordingly, I would grant the writ in part.

MEJ

3

SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CURTIS B. PURSELL

CHIEF JUDGE CLERK OF COURT

SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ
FREDERICKA H. WICKER
CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
JUDE G. GRAVOIS
MARC E. JOHNSON
STEPHEN J. WINDHORST LINDA M. TRAN
JOHN J. MOLAISON, JR.
FIRST DEPUTY CLERK
SCOTT U. SCHLEGEL
TIMOTHY S. MARCEL FIFTH CIRCUIT
MELISSA C. LEDET
JUDGES 101 DERBIGNY STREET (70053)
DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF
POST OFFICE BOX 489
GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376-1400

(504) 376-1498 FAX
www.fifthcircuit.org

NOTICE OF DISPOSITION CERTIFICATE OF DELIVERY
I CERTIFY THAT A COPY OF THE DISPOSITION IN THE FOREGOING MATTER HAS BEEN
TRANSMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UNIFORM RULES - COURT OF APPEAL, RULE 4-6 THIS
DAY 08/17/2025 TO THE TRIAL JUDGE, THE TRIAL COURT CLERK OF COURT, AND AT LEAST ONE OF
THE COUNSEL OF RECORD FOR EACH PARTY, AND TO EACH PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY
COUNSEL, AS LISTED BELOW:

25-K-353
E-NOTIFIED
29th Judicial District Court (Clerk)
Honorable Connie M. Aucoin (DISTRICT JUDGE)
Steven F. Griffith, Sr. (Relator)

MAILED
Louis G. Authement (Respondent) Honorable Joel T. Chaisson, II
Attorney at Law (Respondent)
13919 River Road Payal Patel (Respondent)
Suite 300 Assistant District Attorney
Luling, LA 70070 Twenty-Ninth Judicial District Court
Post Office Box 680
Hahnville, LA 70057