STATE OF LOUISIANA VERSUS PATRICK BOLDEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUSAN M. CHEHARDY CHIEF JUDGE FREDERICKA H. WICKER CURTIS B. PURSELL CLERK OF COURT filnurf nf J\ppcal JUDE G. GRAVOIS NANCY F. VEGA CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK FIFTH CIRCUIT MARC E. JOHNSON ROBERT A. CHAISSON STEPHEN J. WINDHORST HANS J. LIWEBERG JOHN J. MOLAISON. JR. JUDGES SUSAN S. BUCHHOLZ FIRST DEPUTY CLERK STATE OF LOUISIANA MELISSA C. LEDET DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL STAFF 101 DERBIGNY STREET (700S3J POST OFFICE BOX 489 GRETNA, LOUISIANA 70054 (504) 376·1400 (504) 376·1498 FAX WWW.FlFTHCIRCUIT.ORG July 22, 2021 RE: Case No. 21-K-283 State of Louisiana Versus Patrick Bolden To all recipients of the opinion in the above referenced case: On June 30, 2021, an opinion was rendered in the above case. After reviewing the opinion, the following correction has been made: Page 5, Footnote 3, line 3-4 "See State v. Gros, 17-374 (La. App. 5 Cir. 10/17/01), 800 So.2d 938, 950, writ denied. 18-473 (La. 12/17/18), 259 So.3d 343." has been changed to "See State v. Gros, 17-374 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18), 239 So.3d 448, writ denied. 18-04 73 (La. 12/J 7/18), 259 So.3d 343." A copy of the corrected page is enclosed. Please substitute the corrected page in the opinion previously sent. Kind Regards. n 11 1·~. ~ CURTIS B. PURSELL CBP/nfv CLERK OF COURT 11 (La. 9/24/19), 279 So.3d 931, the defendant argued that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine to exclude allegations of sexual assault previously made by the victim against another individual, which did not result in criminal charges against that individual. This Court noted that at the hearing on the motion, the defendant only argued that the victim’s reports of the other allegation were inconsistent, which was not evidence that the victim’s prior allegation of abuse was false. This Court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the State’s motion in limine prohibiting the defendant from questioning the child victim about her allegation of sexual abuse against an individual other than the defendant. Id. at 572-74. Further, in State v. Bryant, 12-591 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/13), 110 So.3d 1191, writ denied, 13-648 (La. 10/11/13), 123 So.3d 1218, this Court found that the defendant’s mere assertion that a victim’s allegations were false did not meet the Smith test for admissibility. Bryant, 12-591 at 12, 110 So.3d at 1198 (citing Wallace, 788 So.2d at 584, writ denied, 01-1849 (La. 5/24/02), 816 So.2d 297, 587-88).3 Based on the foregoing, we find that the trial court properly granted the State’s motion in limine disallowing the questioning of the victim about her allegations of sexual abuse against an individual other than defendant. First, none of the exceptions to La. C.E. art. 412 apply in this case. There was no issue as to whether defendant was the source of semen or injury and the evidence of past sexual incidents was with persons other than relator. Second, at the hearing, relator asserted that because T.S. did not have a sexually transmitted disease and A.T. did, the victim’s allegation had to be false. However, although relator argued 3 This Court has previously upheld the trial court’s grant of the State’s motion in limine where the victim had not recanted the earlier allegation, and there was no independent witness to testify that the allegation was false. See State v. Gros, 17-374 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2/21/18), 239 So.3d 448, writ denied, 180473 (La. 12/17/18), 259 So.3d 343. 21-K-283 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
