State v. Alex B.
150 Conn.App. 584
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- In 2008, the victim, age eleven, disclosed to her sister and mother that the defendant—her stepfather—had sex acts with her on about two or three occasions.
- Police investigated, a warrant for the defendant’s arrest issued, and he was later convicted after a jury trial of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child.
- The defense challenged the prosecutor’s questioning of a forensic interviewer about referrals and the purpose of a treatment program, arguing it bolstered the victim’s credibility.
- The defendant did not object during trial to the interviewer’s testimony or move to strike any responses.
- The trial court admitted testimony from a detective about arrest efforts to show consciousness of guilt, and issued a limiting instruction.
- The trial court ultimately did not give a consciousness of guilt instruction, the jury was instructed on limiting the use of arrest‑related testimony, and the judgment was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutorial impropriety violated due process | Alex B. argues Mackey’s testimony improperly bolstered credibility | Alex B. contends the questioning impermissibly urged credibility through treatment referrals | Claim unpreserved; not constitutional |
| Whether Grodski’s arrest‑effort testimony was reversible error | State contends evidence clarifies sequence of events | Alex B. argues it showed consciousness of guilt and should have been exclusionary | Not harmful error; properly limited and harmless |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (prosecutorial impropriety review framework)
- State v. Stevenson, 269 Conn. 563 (2004) (unpreserved claims of prosecutorial impropriety reviewed under Williams factors)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (constitutional magnitude and harmlessness analysis for preserved claims)
- State v. Ruffin, 144 Conn. App. 387 (2013) (evidentiary claims masquerading as constitutional violations do not invoke Golding)
- State v. Anwar S., 141 Conn. App. 355 (2013) (harmful error standards for evidentiary claims)