Marcotte v. Marcotte

Louisiana Court of Appeal, Third Circuit · Family Law

Family LawDivorceAdulteryBurden of ProofCircumstantial Evidenceadulterydivorcecircumstantial evidence

Facts

Carolyn Marcotte filed for divorce on April 11, 2003, alleging that Thomas Marcotte had committed adultery with Laura St. Romain. At trial, the plaintiff presented evidence of phone calls between Thomas and Laura, Thomas's presence at the St. Romain home when Terrill St. Romain was absent, an alleged hickey on Laura's neck, and photographs showing Thomas and Laura together at a camp after the divorce petition was filed. Carolyn admitted she never actually witnessed sexual activity and had no evidence before April 11, 2003 that Thomas and Laura were having sexual relations. Thomas Marcotte and Laura St. Romain both denied having any sexual relationship before or after their separations.

Issue

Did the trial court err in finding that Carolyn Marcotte proved adultery sufficiently to obtain a divorce under Louisiana Civil Code article 103(2)? More specifically, was the circumstantial evidence, together with allegedly conflicting testimony, enough to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but guilt of adultery?

Rule

A spouse seeking divorce on the ground of adultery bears the burden of proof. Adultery means sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than that person's spouse. When adultery is proved by circumstantial rather than direct evidence, the facts and circumstances must lead fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that adultery occurred, and the proof must be so convincing as to exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but guilt; evidence that a man and woman were alone together or merely had the opportunity to commit adultery is not enough.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Lafayette, Nina Boudreaux files for divorce alleging that her husband, Eric Landry, committed adultery with Dana Hebert. Nina proves only that Eric exchanged dozens of late-night calls with Dana, visited Dana's apartment while Dana's roommate was away, and once left abruptly after receiving a call from her. Both Eric and Dana deny any sexual relationship.

Should the court grant a divorce on the ground of adultery based on this evidence?

Explanation. Adultery may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but the proof must lead fairly and necessarily to the conclusion that sexual intercourse occurred and must exclude any other reasonable hypothesis but guilt. Evidence of phone calls, secretive behavior, and being alone together shows suspicion and opportunity only, which is insufficient. Direct evidence is not required, but mere opportunity is not enough. (Derived from Marcotte v. Marcotte (n.d.).)