156 Conn.App. 138
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant dated the complainant’s mother and moved into her home in 2003.
- In August 2009 the complainant told a cousin that the defendant touched her buttocks while cleaning dishes.
- In March 2010 the complainant’s father reported the allegations to police; the defendant denied wrongdoing and the complainant was removed from the home for safety.
- Donna Meyer conducted a videotaped forensic interview of the complainant (and a transcription) describing various acts of alleged abuse.
- Trial began March 30, 2012; the complainant, then 12, testified inconsistencies arose; defense highlighted credibility concerns; the jury convicted on multiple counts including attempted first-degree sexual assault and various risk-of-injury charges.
- On appeal, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to prosecutorial impropriety during rebuttal argument addressing the defendant’s silence; other issues were left for remand or not addressed due to mootness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial impropriety during rebuttal argument | Miller contends comments about defendant’s failure to testify violated § 54-84 | Defendant asserts the remarks were improper and denial of due process | Violations of § 54-84; due process denied; reversed and remanded for new trial. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Prosecution evidence adequate to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt | Insufficient evidence, particularly given forensic-video reliability and witness credibility | Evidence sufficient to sustain verdict; sufficiency claim rejected. |
| Disclosure of confidential records | State court should disclose complainant’s confidential records | Defendant’s right to confrontation requires access to records | Court did not abuse discretion; records not disclosed. |
| Court’s reopening of direct examination | State improperly reopened the complainant’s direct examination | N/A | Claim deemed unlikely to arise on retrial; moot/not reached. |
| Admission of the forensic video under hearsay exceptions | Video admissible under tender years and Whelan exceptions | Admissibility contested | Moot; cannot be addressed on retrial after reversal on prosecutorial impropriety. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (prosecutorial impropriety factors, due process test)
- State v. Mills, 57 Conn. App. 202 (2000) (two-step Williams analysis; curative instructions)
- State v. Ceballos, 266 Conn. 364 (2003) (credibility-centric case; strength of state’s case matters)
- State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262 (2009) (prosecutorial conduct affecting credibility; strong override needed)
- State v. Jones, 139 Conn. App. 469 (2012) (credibility case; strength of state’s case; impropriety impact)
- State v. Parrott, 262 Conn. 276 (2003) (limits of argument on defendant’s silence)