## Facts

- Hypolite Foret was charged with molestation of a juvenile under La. Rev. Stat. § 14:81.2 based on allegations that he attempted to molest his stepdaughter over roughly 1.5–2 years, when she was ages twelve to fourteen.
- The complainant testified the conduct occurred at the family home when her mother was asleep or away and escalated from hugging and kissing to sexual touching, including digital penetration.
- The allegations emerged after the complainant ran away and, upon return, disclosed the allegations during an interview with a child protection worker.
- The record reflected family conflict and strict household rules, including restrictions on the complainant dating an older boyfriend.
- Before trial, the State retained a psychologist to examine the complainant; the psychologist prepared a written report that the State possessed for more than a week.
- The State produced the psychologist’s report to the defense only on the morning of trial.
- Over objection, the trial court allowed the psychologist to testify as an expert and to offer opinions that the complainant’s behaviors and symptoms were “consistent with” or “indicative of” sexual abuse, relying on syndrome-type behavioral science.
- A jury convicted Foret of attempted molestation of a juvenile; he received a three-year hard-labor sentence, and the court of appeal affirmed (with a sentence amendment for time served).

## Issues

1. Whether the State’s morning-of-trial disclosure of the psychologist’s report violated discovery obligations and prejudiced the defense, requiring reversal.
2. Whether the psychologist’s syndrome-based expert testimony rested on a sufficiently reliable scientific foundation under Louisiana evidence law, and whether its admission contributed to prejudice.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Supreme Court reversed the court of appeal, set aside the conviction, and remanded for a new trial.
- The court held the late disclosure of the psychologist’s report was prejudicial, particularly because the expert testimony was likely to carry significant weight with the jury and rested on a questionable scientific basis.
- Having found reversible prejudice on the disclosure issue, the court did not reach the remaining assignments of error.

## Legal Principles

- Discovery violations may be prejudicial when late disclosure impairs the defense’s ability to investigate, consult or retain experts, and prepare cross-examination of a central prosecution witness, especially in credibility-driven prosecutions.
- Trial courts must act as gatekeepers for scientific expert testimony, evaluating whether the methodology is scientifically valid and whether it fits the issues in dispute.
- In assessing scientific reliability, courts may use Daubert-type considerations as guides (including testability, peer review, error rates, and general acceptance), particularly for novel or developing behavioral science.
- Syndrome-style testimony suggesting that certain behaviors imply abuse presents a heightened risk of unfair prejudice because jurors may give undue weight to assertions presented as scientific.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new trial because the State’s last-minute production of a key psychological report deprived the defense of a meaningful opportunity to challenge and test influential, scientifically contested expert testimony, creating prejudicial error in a case that depended heavily on witness credibility.


State v. Foret, 628 So. 2d 1116 (La. 1993)