State v. Flores
1996 WL 83209, 669 So. 2d 646 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal statute is not unconstitutionally vague if it describes unlawful conduct with sufficient clarity for a person of reasonable intelligence to understand what is proscribed. The fact that an act may be punishable under multiple criminal statutes does not render a statute invalid, as prosecutors have discretion to choose under which provision to proceed.
Facts:
- Raymond Flores legally adopted his step-daughter.
- When the child was approximately eight years old, Flores began a pattern of sexual conduct with her, which initially consisted of fondling her genitals.
- Flores's conduct escalated over time, leading to digital insertion and then sexual intercourse by the time the child was ten years old.
- The sexual relationship continued until the child was approximately 14 years old in 1994, at which point the abuse became known to her mother and others.
- Flores admitted to engaging in sexual intercourse with his adopted daughter after June 10, 1993.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Louisiana charged Raymond Flores in trial court by bill of information with aggravated incest.
- Flores entered a plea of guilty to the charge.
- The trial court held a sentencing hearing and sentenced Flores to serve fifteen years at hard labor.
- Flores filed a motion to reconsider the sentence, which the trial court denied.
- Flores (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Second Circuit, arguing the statute was unconstitutional and the sentence was excessive, against the State of Louisiana (appellee).
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Louisiana's aggravated incest statute, La.R.S. 14:78.1, violate constitutional due process principles by being impermissibly vague or by criminalizing conduct already covered by other statutes, thereby granting prosecutors improper discretion?
Opinions:
Majority - Gaskins, J.
No, Louisiana's aggravated incest statute is not unconstitutional. The statute is not impermissibly vague because it clearly describes the proscribed conduct, the specific class of offenders and victims, and the required mental state, providing sufficient notice for a person of ordinary intelligence to understand its meaning. The statute's terms, such as 'sexual intercourse' and 'lewd fondling,' have common meanings or have been upheld against vagueness challenges in prior cases. Furthermore, the fact that the statute criminalizes conduct that may also be punishable under other statutes is not a constitutional flaw. Louisiana law explicitly grants district attorneys the discretion to prosecute an offender under any applicable statute when the conduct violates multiple provisions.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms two significant principles: the strong presumption of constitutionality afforded to legislative acts and the broad discretion granted to prosecutors in charging decisions. By upholding the aggravated incest statute, the court solidifies a specific and powerful legal tool for prosecuting intra-familial sexual abuse, particularly where the elements of age and a specific family relationship are central. The ruling clarifies that a statute's overlap with other criminal laws does not create a constitutional infirmity, reinforcing the state's power to create more specific offenses with potentially harsher penalties for conduct it deems particularly egregious.
