No. 99-487 Precedential Processed

State ex rel. L.T.

Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit · Filed October 13, 1999 · 747 So. 2d 148

Cited by

State of Louisiana in the Interest of K.B. Vs. La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 2023
State in the Interest of D. J. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State ex rel. D.J. 149 So. 3d 923 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State in the Interest of E. T. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State ex rel. E.T. 136 So. 3d 971 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2014
State of Louisiana in the Intrest of B. R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2014
State in the Interest of J.R. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2012
State in the Interest of J.D. B La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
State in the Interest of T.W. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
State ex rel. T.W. 21 So. 3d 465 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
State ex rel. K.G. 778 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001
State Ex Rel. Kg 778 So. 2d 716 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 2001

Opinion text

LAMY, J., concurring. I respectfully disagree with regard to that portion of the majority opinion regarding the questioning of the victim and other witnesses as to the victim’s propensity for filing false claims. In my opinion, this questioning is not one requiring an analysis under La.Code Evid. art. 405(A), i.e., one involving general reputation. Rather, I conclude the line of questioning sought was related to the credibility of the victim as a witness and the credibility of her reporting of the incident. In my opinion, this is the type of questioning permitted by La. Code Evid. art. 607. Notwithstanding this conclusion, I find no reversible error. Rather, the State presented the testimonies of other witnesses to the event. This evidence supported the version offered by the victim. Accordingly, there was sufficient evidence regarding the existence of the underlying incident. Therefore, I concur in the result.