State v. Galliano
Louisiana Court of Appeal
639 So. 2d 440 (1994)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
On June 9, 1992, Lynn Paul Galliano (defendant) and a 39-year-old woman were helping Tammy Baudoin move into an apartment next door to the woman’s residence. Later that day, Galliano and the woman went to a lounge together. The woman later asked Galliano to take her home, but Galliano took the woman to Galliano’s house instead and raped the woman at gunpoint. The State of Louisiana (plaintiff) charged Galliano with aggravated rape. At trial, Galliano’s counsel informed the trial court that Galliano intended to call Laurie Clement to testify that during a previous relationship between Clement and Galliano, Galliano never raped Clement or tried to have nonconsensual sex with Clement. The trial court implied that Clement’s testimony was admissible, but the court stated that if Clement testified that she and Galliano had only consensual sexual relations, the prosecution could call Baudoin to testify in rebuttal that Galliano allegedly raped Baudoin three months before he raped the woman. Galliano’s counsel objected to the court’s ruling and decided not to call Clement as a witness. The jury found Galliano guilty, and he appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal. On appeal, Galliano argued that the court’s evidentiary ruling deprived Galliano of his constitutional right to present witnesses to testify on his behalf.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Crain, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.