The conviction and sentence of a 27-year-old Lake Charles man accused of raping a 13-year-old girl will stand.

Joseph Hunter Constance was arrested on Feb. 13, 2019, after the victim told Lake Charles police officers she was raped while a guest in Constance’s home.

Hours after his arrest, Lake Charles police said Constance confessed.

The victim testified she did not immediately report the rape — which happened the previous December — because Constance threatened to harm her and her 11-year-old sister if she told anyone. She later testified she decided to report the attack after she learned her sister — who was under anesthesia at the time for a medical procedure — said Constance was saying inappropriate things to her and making her uncomfortable.

While in jail, Constance participated in three separate phone calls in which he admitted having sex with someone in the home that night and that the person was on her stomach — just as the victim stated in two video-taped forensic interviews with the Child Advocacy Center after filing her report with police.

Before his April 2022 trial, Constance’s attorney, Todd Clemons, successfully filed a motion to suppress the confession to police, citing Constance’s Miranda rights were violated during his interview.

A jury, however, unanimously convicted Constance after a two-day trial. He was sentenced to serve 40 years at hard labor, the maximum penalty allowed.

In his appeal, Constance said the trial court erred when it prohibited his attorney from cross-examining the victim regarding statements she made to the CAC; erred when it ruled the second CAC interview — which he said contained other evidence of crimes — was deemed admissible; erred when it restricted his attorney’s closing argument; and claimed the court showed “obvious and clear bias” during the trial.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeal said it disagreed with Constance’s claim about cross-examining the victim. The panel said a defendant has a constitutional right to confront his accuser — but that right is not without limitations.

The evidence code requires the trial court to “exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to … make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth. The trial court here determined that defense counsel was attempting to impeach (the victim) by misstating evidence to make it appear as though she had changed her story. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this line of questioning.”

The court also ruled that the second CAC interview — in which the victim said Constance had been abusive to a relative of hers — was only entered into court record after Constance’s attorney referred to the videos during his opening statement. During the trial, the prosecution team told the judge they had no intention of using the second video but the defense counsel’s statements about that interview now necessitated its introduction.”

“Defendant beating (the relative) is highly relevant to the issue of why a 13-year-old victim might delay in reporting the rape, especially given (her) testimony that Constance had threatened to hurt (her) if she told anyone,” the appeals court said in denying Constance’s claim.

The court also denied Constance’s claim the court erred when restricting his attorney’s closing arguments in which he planned to state the police investigation was inadequate. The panel found the court did not abuse its discretion because “the trial court noted that law enforcement’s failure to follow up with forensics or further investigation after the confession was understandable and a natural outcome of the circumstances given that the officers had the evidence they needed at that point.”

As for the final claim, the appeals court said it will not consider it because the defense didn’t cite judicial bias during the trial.

“The claim is being raised for the first time here on appeal,” the court ruled. “Consequently, it is untimely and will not be considered.”