State of Louisiana v. Derrick Collins

• Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
• Decided: February 27, 2025
• Docket: 2025-K-0129
• Status: Published

Opinion

STATE OF LOUISIANA * NO. 2025-K-0129

VERSUS * COURT OF APPEAL DERRICK COLLINS * FOURTH CIRCUIT * STATE OF LOUISIANA *******

ON SUPERVISORY WRIT FROM THE CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT ORLEANS PARISH NO. 560-338, “DIVISION G” Judge Nandi Campbell ****** Judge Karen K. Herman ****** (Court composed of Judge Karen K. Herman, Judge Nakisha Ervin-Knott, Judge Monique G. Morial)

Jason R. Williams DISTRICT ATTORNEY Parish of Orleans Brad Scott CHIEF OF APPEALS Parish of Orleans Zachary M. Phillips ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY Parish of Orleans 619 S. White St. New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR RELATOR, THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Madeline McKay Jennings ORLEANS PUBLIC DEFENDERS 2601 Tulane Ave., Ste. 700 New Orleans, LA 70119

COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT, DERRICK COLLINS

WRIT GRANTED; FEBRUARY 12, 2025 RULING REVERSED; FEBRUARY 7, 2025 RULING REINSTATED; STAY DENIED

FEBRUARY 27, 2025 KKH NEK MGM Relator, the State of Louisiana (“the State”), seeks expedited review of the

trial court’s February 12, 2025 amended ruling, which qualified Ray Olszewski

(“Mr. Olszewski”) as an expert in the field of child forensic interviewing best

practices, adolescent development, and suggestibility. For the following reasons,

we grant the writ application, reverse the trial court’s amended ruling, and reinstate

the trial court’s original February 7, 2025 ruling. We also deny the State’s request

for a stay of the trial court proceedings.

FACTUAL AND PROCECDURAL HISTORY

A.K., a juvenile male, was allegedly sexually assaulted by his mother’s ex-

boyfriend, Defendant, Derrick Collins (“Defendant”). At the time of the incident,

A.K. was 12 years old; Defendant was 51 years old.

On December 15, 2023, the State filed an indictment charging Defendant

with first degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under the age of

seventeen, violations of La. R.S. 14:42 and 14:81, respectively. Defendant

appeared for arraignment on December 21, 2023 and entered pleas of not guilty.

On November 8, 2024, Defendant filed a notice of expert witness, advising

that he intends to offer Mr. Olszewski as an expert witness. In the notice,

1 Defendant indicated that Mr. Olszewski will provide testimony regarding child

forensic interviewing best practices, adolescent development, and suggestibility in

children. Attached to the notice was the curriculum vitae (“CV”) of Mr.

Olszewski. Defendant later supplemented his notice to include Mr. Olszewski’s

written report.

On January 31, 2025, the State filed an opposition to the notice of expert

witness, requesting that the testimony be excluded in part, or in the alternative that

the trial court set a Daubert hearing.1

On February 6, 2025, the trial court held a Daubert hearing, wherein Mr.

Olszewski testified. The trial court took the matter under advisement and on

February 7, 2025, issued a ruling, finding that Mr. Olszewski was “qualified as an

expert in the field of child forensic interviewing.”

On February 12, 2025, the trial court issued an amended ruling2 and

qualified Mr. Olszewski as an “expert in the field of child forensic interviewing

best practices, adolescent development, and suggestibility.” 3

The State thereafter filed a writ application with this Court seeking

expedited consideration and a stay of the trial court proceedings.

LAW AND DISCUSSION

An appellate court reviews a trial court’s ruling on the qualifications of an

expert witness under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Farrier, 2014-

1 See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469

(1993).

2 The record indicates that subsequent to the February 7, 2025 ruling, the parties had “different

views on what the ruling means” and sought clarification from the trial court. 3 We note that rather than limiting the scope of permissible expert testimony as ordinarily done

in a Daubert hearing, the trial court only ruled on the fields of study to which Mr. Olszewski could testify.

2 0623, p. 7 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/25/15), 162 So.3d 1233, 1240; State v. Golden, 2011-

0735, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/23/12), 95 So.3d 522, 530.

The State argues that the trial court erred in amending its ruling to qualify

Mr. Olszewski as an expert in the fields of child forensic interviewing best

practices, adolescent development, and suggestibility. The State asks this Court to

reinstate the trial court’s original ruling issued February 7, 2025, which qualified

Mr. Olszewski as an expert only in the field of child forensic interviewing.

The record reflects that Mr. Olszewski never held himself out as an expert in

“best practices, adolescent development, or suggestibility.” Pursuant to his CV

and his trial testimony, Mr. Olszewski’s area of expertise is child forensic

interviewing. Accordingly, Mr. Olszewski should only have been qualified as an

expert in the field of child forensic interviewing.4 As such, we find that the trial

court abused its discretion in qualifying Mr. Olszewski as an expert in the fields of

child forensic interviewing best practices, adolescent development, and

suggestibility.

For the foregoing reasons, we grant the writ application, reverse the trial

court’s amended ruling, and reinstate the original ruling, wherein the trial court

qualified Mr. Olszewski in the field of child forensic interviewing. Additionally,

we deny the State’s request for a stay of the trial court proceedings.

WRIT GRANTED; FEBRUARY 12, 2025 RULING REVERSED; FEBRUARY 7, 2025 RULING REINSTATED; STAY DENIED

4 Such a ruling would not prohibit Mr. Olszewski from potentially testifying regarding best

practices and protocols within his field of child forensic interviewing.