191 Conn.App. 532
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- This is a concurring opinion by Justice Elgo in Dufresne v. Dufresne regarding evidentiary treatment of testimony from a family relations counselor, Nicole Stutz.
- Trial court referred matter to Court Support Services family services unit; Stutz testified about supervised visitation administered by Access Agency and reports from the TIP program.
- Stutz read from an Access Agency report and relayed contents of a TIP clinical social worker’s report; defendant did not object to her testimony on hearsay grounds at trial.
- The trial court rejected Stutz’s testimony as hearsay and declined to consider its substance, stating the reports were never admitted into evidence.
- Justice Elgo agrees the testimony should not have been categorically rejected as hearsay and argues the court committed reversible error by refusing to consider the substance of properly admitted testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court properly rejected Stutz’s testimony as hearsay | Court improperly disregarded testimony that was admitted without objection; court had to consider and weigh it | Testimony relied on out-of-court reports and therefore was hearsay and inadmissible | Testimony was admitted without objection and the trial court erred by categorically rejecting it as hearsay; court must consider its substance and weigh its probative value |
| Whether failure to credit Stutz’s testimony equals reversible error | Plaintiff sought consideration, not mandatory crediting; court should have weighed it against other evidence | Court’s refusal to credit justified by hearsay concerns | Refusal to consider admitted evidence was reversible error; distinction between not crediting and not considering is crucial |
| Role of family relations counselors’ testimony | Such testimony is expected under Judicial Branch policy and may provide factual information to the court | Trial court may discount or reject parts of family relations testimony as it sees fit | Court must consider properly admitted family relations testimony though it retains discretion to assign weight |
| Remedy / next step | Remand for further proceedings where Stutz’s testimony is considered and weighed | Affirmance based on trial court’s evidentiary ruling | Case remanded because trial court improperly excluded consideration of admitted testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Schovanec, 326 Conn. 310 (2017) (trial court has wide discretion in evidentiary rulings)
- Misthopoulos v. Misthopoulos, 297 Conn. 358 (2010) (broad trial court discretion on admissibility)
- Marshall v. Kleinman, 186 Conn. 67 (1982) (evidence admitted without objection becomes part of the case and is usable for whatever persuasive value it has)
- Volck v. Muzio, 204 Conn. 507 (1987) (hearsay admitted without objection may be relied upon by the trier for whatever worth it has)
- Yontef v. Yontef, 185 Conn. 275 (1981) (trial court not bound to accept family relations officer opinion; court decides probative parts)
- Barros v. Barros, 309 Conn. 499 (2013) (family relations evaluators assist court and provide factual assessments)
- Cohen v. Cohen, 11 Conn. App. 241 (1987) (failure to object to incompetent evidence waives complaint and makes the evidence part of the case)
- State v. Vinal, 205 Conn. 507 (1987) (hearsay objections concern admissibility rather than weight)