Task force members flag legal proof and intent as central challenges if transmission is criminalized

Task force members spent part of the meeting discussing how criminal statutes that target intentional exposure to incurable sexually transmitted infections would be applied in practice and what evidence prosecutors need to prove intent. Representative Pat Moore cited press reports about out‑of‑state prosecutions and said some constituents requested the study for justice reasons.

Zack Daniels, executive director of the Louisiana District Attorneys Association, offered to prepare a legal briefing for the task force explaining how "intent" is defined and applied under Louisiana criminal law and how prior prosecutions have been handled. "I'd be happy to compile a presentation of sorts as to what intent means in criminal law," Daniels said, offering to review reported cases and decisions under the state's HIV exposure statute.

Members and presenters emphasized several evidentiary limits in common STI testing: for HPV and HSV, routine tests generally cannot show who infected whom; for HBV and HIV, proving directionality may be possible only in narrow circumstances when pre‑exposure negative tests and acute illness are documented. Dietz and others noted that public reporting often lacks clinical detail (for example, whether an exposed person actually contracted an infection or whether the alleged source was virally suppressed), which complicates public understanding of prosecutions.

The task force asked legal stakeholders and staff to assemble past reported cases, summaries of how the HIV exposure statute has been applied, and an explanation of prosecutorial standards to inform future policy recommendations. Daniels volunteered to contribute that analysis for a future meeting.