## Facts

- Dadrien Tremain Updite and his wife, Joney Pillows-Updite, had a verbal and physical altercation in their apartment.
- Two days after the incident, Pillows-Updite contacted police to report what happened.
- Police obtained recorded statements from Pillows-Updite and from her nine-year-old daughter, who was in the apartment during the altercation.
- In her statement to police, Pillows-Updite said that Updite called her names, punched her, and choked her.
- Police later advised Updite he was under investigation for battery; Updite denied hitting his wife and claimed she hit him.
- A few days later, Pillows-Updite attempted to withdraw the complaint, stating she overreacted, misunderstood Updite’s intent, and did not want to press charges; she also claimed officers forced her to give a statement.
- The State nonetheless charged Updite with domestic-abuse battery under La. R.S. 14:35.3.
- Weeks later, Pillows-Updite filed a petition for protection from abuse alleging Updite punched, choked, shoved, slapped, and threatened her.
- At Updite’s bench trial, Pillows-Updite recanted her abuse allegations, testified someone else prepared the protection petition and she did not read it before signing, and suggested Updite may have fallen on her rather than punching her.
- Pillows-Updite also testified that she threw something at Updite and that he restrained her.
- A responding officer testified Pillows-Updite gave a clear account during the initial interview and that the officer observed bruises on her body that she attributed to Updite’s blows.
- The trial court credited the earlier accounts and the physical-injury evidence over the recantation and found Updite guilty of domestic-abuse battery.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court could consider the victim’s prior inconsistent statements (including recorded statements and the protection-from-abuse petition) when the victim testified at trial but recanted.
2. Whether the evidence, viewed under the *Jackson v. Virginia* standard, was sufficient to prove domestic-abuse battery beyond a reasonable doubt despite the victim’s recantation.

## Decision

- The Louisiana Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, affirmed Updite’s conviction and sentence for misdemeanor domestic-abuse battery.
- The court rejected Updite’s claim that the trial court improperly relied on the victim’s prior inconsistent statements, concluding the trial court was entitled to credit the earlier accounts over the trial recantation.
- Applying *Jackson v. Virginia*, the court held that a rational factfinder could find the elements of La. R.S. 14:35.3 proven beyond a reasonable doubt based on the earlier statements, the officer’s testimony, and the observed bruising.

## Legal Principles

- In Louisiana, when a witness testifies and is subject to cross-examination, certain prior inconsistent statements may be admitted and considered for their evidentiary value, not solely to attack credibility, so long as the evidentiary requirements are satisfied.
- Under *Jackson v. Virginia*, evidence is sufficient if, when viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could find each essential element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The factfinder may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness; appellate courts generally defer to the trial court’s credibility calls in a bench trial.
- In domestic-violence cases, a victim’s later recantation does not require acquittal when the factfinder reasonably credits earlier statements and other corroborating proof such as physical injury observations.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit affirmed Updite’s domestic-abuse battery conviction because the trial court was permitted to rely on the victim’s earlier recorded statements and protection-from-abuse allegations, along with officer testimony and observed bruises, and a rational factfinder could find the statutory elements proven beyond a reasonable doubt even though the victim recanted at trial.


State v. Updite, 87 So. 3d 257 (2012)