State v. Acosta, 162 Conn.App. 774

In 2009 the defendant, Roberto Acosta, engaged in sexual intercourse with his 12‑year‑old niece (A) at her home; she later disclosed the assault in 2012 and the defendant was charged and tried.
The state sought to introduce prior uncharged sexual misconduct involving three family members from 1990, 1997, and 2006; the defense objected to the 1990 and 1997 incidents as too remote and prejudicial.
The trial court excluded the 1990 conduct but admitted testimony about the 1997 and 2006 incidents, finding them relevant under the DeJesus propensity framework (not too remote, sufficiently similar, and committed on similar victims) and that probative value outweighed prejudice; limiting instructions were given.
At trial, a witness (J) testified about a 1997 incident in which the defendant placed her hand on his genital area while she was nine years old; another witness (C) testified about a 2006 incident without defense objection.
The jury convicted Acosta of first‑degree sexual assault and two counts of risk of injury to a child; the defendant appealed, arguing the 1997 evidence was too remote and insufficiently similar to be admissible.
The Appellate Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the 1997 testimony because the DeJesus factors were satisfied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of 1997 uncharged sexual misconduct under DeJesus propensity exception	State: evidence was relevant — victims were similar (prepubescent relatives), acts had similar initial conduct (placing victim's hand on genital area), and probative value outweighed prejudice.	Acosta: incident was too remote (12 years) and not sufficiently similar in severity or kind to the charged 2009 assault; urged a >10‑year exclusion.	Court: affirmed admission — no bright‑line 10‑year rule; remoteness is one factor, and here similarity of victims and acts plus balancing supported admissibility; no abuse of discretion.

State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008) (establishes limited propensity exception for uncharged sexual misconduct and sets three‑part relevancy test)
State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618 (2007) (ten‑year gap not necessarily too remote; remoteness is one factor)
State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481 (2004) (upholds admissibility where nine‑year gap and other DeJesus factors satisfied)
State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 (1994) (remoteness rarely dispositive; seven‑year prior act held sufficiently recent)
State v. Antonaras, 137 Conn. App. 703 (2012) (upholds admission with nine–twelve year gap where misconducts were highly similar)
State v. Barry A., 145 Conn. App. 582 (2013) (uses family relationship and victim similarity in DeJesus analysis)
State v. McKenzie‑Adams, 281 Conn. 486 (2007) (courts may infer escalation was prevented by victim’s resistance)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (2012) (addresses limits and standards for admitting prior misconduct)