The opinion
PATRICIA GIBBS * NO. 2023-CA-0599
ALEXANDER LAGARDE
* COURT OF APPEAL
VERSUS
* FOURTH CIRCUIT
JEAN PAUL LAGARDE
* STATE OF LOUISIANA
*
*
*******
BROWN, J., CONCURS WITH REASONS.
PAB I respectfully concur with the majority opinion. I write separately to
highlight this Court’s role on appellate review. “It is well-settled that ‘[w]hen the
factual findings are based on the credibility of witness testimony, the appellate
court must give great deference to the fact finder’s decision to credit witness
testimony.’” Carrie v. Jones, 21-0659, p. 12 (La. App. 4 Cir. 1/21/22), 334 So.3d
834, 843 (quoting Watts v. Watts, 08-0834, p. 2 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/8/09), 10 So.3d
855, 857). “Even if an appellate court feels its own evaluations and inferences are
more reasonable than the factfinder’s, reasonable evaluations of credibility and
reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed upon review where conflict
exists in testimony.” Id. at p. 12, 334 So.3d at 843-44 (quoting Guste Homes
Resident Mgmt. Corp. v. Thomas, 20-0110, p. 8 (La. App. 4 Cir. 7/29/20), 302
So.3d 1181, 1187). In the case sub judice, the district court gave oral reasons for
judgment, stating that “[the court did] not find that Miss Lagarde met her abuse
allegations as alleged in the Petition for Protection from Abuse by the
preponderance of the evidence, coupled with parties[’] testimony, the evidence and
the testimony of Dr. Lawing.” As such, and after a review of the record, I agree
with the majority that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Mr.
Lagarde’s version of events to be more credible that than of Ms. Lagarde.