Roger B. v. Commissioner of Correction
157 Conn. App. 265
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Petitioner Roger B. was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual offenses against two children (offenses occurred 1995–2000) and sentenced to a long prison term; convictions affirmed on direct appeal.
- Victims disclosed abuse to foster parents in 2000; forensic interviews took place July 17, 2000; police obtained an arrest warrant July 6, 2005 but did not execute it until January 24, 2007.
- Petitioner filed a habeas petition alleging trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to raise a statute‑of‑limitations affirmative defense based on unreasonable post‑warrant delay, and (2) failing to consult or present a forensic‑interview expert / failing to introduce videotaped interviews.
- The habeas court denied relief and denied certification to appeal; petitioner sought review in the Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court held the habeas court abused its discretion in denying certification as to the statute‑of‑limitations claim and remanded for a new hearing on that claim, but affirmed the denial as to the expert/forensic‑interview claims.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner’s Argument | Respondent’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a statute‑of‑limitations defense based on unreasonable delay in executing the warrant | Counsel should have moved to dismiss because the warrant was executed 18 months after issuance, beyond the 5‑year §54‑193a limitation, and the state could not show due diligence | Warrant was issued within the limitations period and delays were justified by difficulty locating petitioner; counsel reasonably concluded defense would fail | Appellate Court: Habeas court erred by not fully analyzing whether petitioner made a non‑elusive showing that would shift burden to state; remand for new hearing on this claim |
| Whether counsel’s failure to consult or present an expert on forensic interview protocol and suggestibility was ineffective | An expert would have exposed suggestive interview techniques and undermined victims’ credibility; reasonable probability of different outcome | Trial counsel reasonably reviewed tapes, attended relevant trainings, made tactical decision not to introduce videotapes because they were damaging; state’s expert testimony was limited and cross‑examination targeted other credibility issues | Appellate Court: Habeas court properly found no prejudice; counsel’s decisions were reasonable tactical choices; claim denied |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for not introducing videotaped forensic interviews at trial | Introducing tapes and expert critique would have cast doubt on reliability of delayed disclosures | Tapes were highly damaging; introducing them risked worse outcome; counsel intentionally avoided opening door to tapes | Appellate Court: Tactical choice was reasonable and not deficient; claim denied |
| Whether habeas court abused discretion by denying certification to appeal | Petitioner: issues were debatable and merited further review, particularly statute‑of‑limitations claim | Respondent: certification denial was proper because claims lacked merit; alternative grounds (e.g., petitioner’s flight tolled limitations) raised on appeal but not below | Appellate Court: Abuse of discretion as to statute‑of‑limitations claim (certification reversed & remand); certification denial affirmed as to other claims |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443 (Conn. 1987) (adopted rule that an arrest warrant tolled limitations only if executed without unreasonable delay)
- State v. Ali, 233 Conn. 403 (Conn. 1995) (issuance of warrant prosecutes only if executed with due diligence)
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑prong ineffective assistance standard: performance and prejudice)
- Thompson v. Commissioner of Correction, 91 Conn. App. 205 (Conn. App. 2005) (failure to move to dismiss stale warrant found deficient where delay was extreme)
- Gonzalez v. Commissioner of Correction, 122 Conn. App. 271 (Conn. App. 2010) (application of Strickland in statute‑of‑limitations context)
- Michael T. v. Commissioner of Correction, 307 Conn. 84 (Conn. 2012) (no per se rule requiring defense expert in every child sexual abuse case; circumstances may require one)