Donald G. v. Commissioner of Correction, 203 Conn.App. 58

Petitioner Donald G. was convicted of multiple sexual‑assault and risk‑of‑injury charges arising from incidents in 2003, Dec. 24, 2007 (family party), and Dec. 22, 2008 (neighborhood party); he was acquitted of the charge arising from the 2008 party.
At trial, petitioner’s mother, stepfather, and two family friends testified they had not seen him at the 2008 neighborhood party; trial counsel did not ask those witnesses about the 2007 family party.
Detective Young testified at trial that petitioner told police he had attended the 2007 family party and gave an account of that evening, contradicting petitioner’s later habeas claim of absence.
The state introduced uncharged‑misconduct evidence alleging additional sexual contact during an Okemo ski trip; petitioner claims counsel failed to investigate a witness (Theresa Charette) who would have said petitioner was not present.
Trial counsel and the prosecutor sporadically referred to the complainant as the “victim” despite an in limine order barring that term; counsel did not object to the prosecutor’s references or seek curative instructions.
Habeas court (Kwak, J.) denied the third amended petition; court found counsel’s strategic choices reasonable and petitioner failed to prove deficient performance or prejudice; petitioner obtained certification to appeal and this court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Donald)	Defendant's Argument (Commissioner)	Held
Counsel failed to elicit testimony that would place petitioner away from the Dec. 24, 2007 family party	Counsel should have questioned mother, stepfather, and two friends about petitioner’s absence from 2007 family party to bolster alibi	Questioning those witnesses about 2007 would risk credibility on 2008 issue; petitioner admitted to police he attended 2007; strategic choice reasonable	Denied — no deficient performance; testimony would not overcome admission and risked losing credibility on other counts
Counsel/State repeatedly referred to complainant as “victim”; counsel failed to object	Referrals to “victim” improperly prejudiced jury; counsel should have objected/requested curative instruction	Use was sporadic, not pervasive; counsel’s few references were not outcome‑determinative; acquittal on one charge undermines prejudice claim	Denied — any error was not prejudicial; no reasonable probability of different result
Failure to investigate uncharged‑misconduct witness (Okemo ski trip)	Counsel should have called Theresa Charette to rebut ski‑trip misconduct evidence and impeach complainant	Petitioner admitted to counsel that he attended the ski trip; calling Charette would not have assisted an admitted fact; strategic decision reasonable	Denied — no deficient performance because testimony would not help given petitioner’s admission

Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 463 (sets two‑prong Strickland/Gideon standard for ineffective assistance)
Gaines v. Commissioner of Correction, 306 Conn. 664 (habeas court’s factfinding and credibility deference; fairness benchmark)
Meletrich v. Commissioner of Correction, 178 Conn. App. 266 (strategic choices after investigation are virtually unchallengeable)
Jackson v. Commissioner of Correction, 149 Conn. App. 681 (failure to call witnesses is not ineffective absent showing testimony would help alibi)
State v. Cortes, 276 Conn. 241 (court cautions against referring to complainant as “victim”)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (excessive use of “victim” may improperly suggest commission of crime)
Bowens v. Commissioner of Correction, 333 Conn. 502 (ineffective assistance standards and appellate review)