State v. Adams
2012 Conn. App. LEXIS 587
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Dwayne Adams was convicted by jury of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and three counts of risk of injury to a child.
- In late 2008, the eight-year-old victim and her parents lived next door to Adams in Hartford; the victim often spent nights at Adams’s residence.
- On December 26–27, 2008, Adams entered the victim’s bedroom, forced the victim to remove clothing, and sexually assaulted her including vaginal intercourse and forced fellatio.
- The victim reported the assault the next day; she was examined and treated, and DNA testing on the underwear showed a high likelihood that Adams contributed the seminal fluid.
- The appeal challenges include unpreserved claims about constancy of accusation testimony and related witnesses, admissibility of certain expert testimony, prosecutorial impropriety, sufficiency of the evidence, and denial of a motion for a new trial; the court affirms the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constancy of accusation testimony preserved? | Adams argues the testimony was improperly admitted. | Adams asserts evidentiary errors affected fairness. | Unpreserved; Golding/Evans/plain error not satisfied; no reversal. |
| Testimony bolstering victim’s credibility? | Evidence indirectly bolstered credibility. | Offending testimony violated proper limits. | Unpreserved; not reviewable under Golding; no plain error found. |
| Prosecutorial impropriety from constancy of accusation evidence? | Prosecutor elicited improper testimony. | Prosecutorial conduct violated fairness. | Not prosecutorial misconduct; no due process violation proven. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support convictions? | Evidence insufficient without conclusive physical proof. | Medical/forensic evidence did not conclusively prove liability. | Evidence, including victim testimony and DNA, sufficient beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Motion for a new trial properly preserved? | Motion should be reviewed on the merits. | Grounds for new trial preserved by June 2010 motion. | Unpreserved; not reviewable. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 239 (Conn. 1989) (review of unpreserved constitutional claims limited; etc.)
- State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 (Conn. 1973) (evan standard; review limitations explained.)
- State v. Samuels, 273 Conn. 541 (Conn. 2005) (constancy of accusation testimony not constitutional error.)
- State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (Conn. 1996) (limits of Golding review; Evans integration.)
- State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280 (Conn. 2000) (supervisory review considerations.)
- State v. Jimenez-Jaramill, 134 Conn. App. 346 (Conn. App. 2012) (supervisory authority; integrity of judicial process.)
- State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (Conn. 2004) (prosecutorial impropriety may be reviewed on appeal.)
- State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (framework for evaluating prosecutorial impropriety.)
- State v. Richard W., 115 Conn. App. 124 (Conn. App. 2009) (evidentiary sufficiency review standards.)