State of Connecticut v. David N.J., 19 A.3d 646

Victim, born August 1997, is the defendant's stepgranddaughter who was sexually abused from 2003 to 2005 in Hartford while the defendant moved into the victim's home.
Abuse included vaginal intercourse by digital and penile penetration and fellatio; the defendant provided money to the victim after acts.
The victim’s cousin VJ witnessed or overheard related abuse through a door gap, raising concerns about credibility and safeguarding the victim.
The victim disclosed the abuse to VJ, who then prompted medical evaluation; medical records and diagnostic interview followed by police investigation.
The State charged the defendant with five counts of sexual assault in the first degree and one count of risk of injury to a child; the jury convicted on counts 1, 2, and 5, and 6, but acquitted on counts 3 and 4, and the defendant was sentenced to 29 years with ten years’ special parole.
On appeal, the defendant claimed four trial-court errors: restricted cross-examination of a physician, failure to disclose all relevant confidential records, sequestration-remedy issues, and an enlarging supplemental instruction on penetration; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Cross-examination about injury likelihood	State argues the hypothetical question lacked foundation and would confuse jurors.	N.J. contends the question should be allowed to test Berrien's testimony and confront the issue.	Court affirmed admission control; no abuse of discretion.
Disclosure of confidential department records	State complies with Esposito and George J. standards; disclosure limited to relevant material.	Defense seeks broader in camera access to department records for impeachment.	Court held no abuse; disclosed portions were sufficient; undisclosed parts deemed irrelevant or cumulative.
Sequestration remedies	Remedies addressing a unilateral sequestration were appropriate to preserve fairness.	Remedies were improper since sequestration applied only to state's witnesses and defense witnesses were not included.	Court held no abuse; remedies neutrally explained and prosecutor cross-examined about presence; Portuondo/Alexander framework applied.
Supplemental instruction on penetration	Instruction properly mirrors Albert to define penetration as any entry into labia majora for vaginal intercourse.	Instruction enlarges charges beyond the information; breach of notice and due process.	Court held no improper enlargement; instruction consistent with Albert and did not prejudice defendant.

Floyd v. Fruit Industries, Inc., 144 Conn. 659 (1957) (hypothetical cross-examination standards; evidence foundation)
State v. Davis, 298 Conn. 1 (2010) (confrontation rights and cross-examination of experts)
State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (1984) (procedure for disclosure of confidential records)
State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551 (2006) (in camera review of confidential records)
State v. Albert, 252 Conn. 795 (2000) (definition of penetration; labia majora as penetration)
State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (sequestration and trial fairness)
Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61 (2000) (prosecutor remarks about defendant's presence at trial permitted)
State v. Alexander, 254 Conn. 290 (2000) (defense witness presence and prosecutorial argument under Portuondo)