State v. Andersen
132 Conn. App. 125
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Defendant Keith Andersen charged after 2007 incident involving nine-year-old K living with her father C in a Stonington mobile home.
- Defendant and C had previously been friends; N, S, and N's boyfriend visited the mobile home the night of the incident.
- In the early hours, Andersen touched K’s buttocks through her shorts; K alerted C, who found the back door ajar and screen ripped.
- Prior uncharged sexual misconduct with the same victim (K) occurred in a car with C in the backseat within months of the charged offenses; testimony was introduced with limiting instructions.
- Jury convicted Andersen on: one count risk of injury to a child (53-21(a)(1)), one count risk of injury to a child (53-21(a)(2)), one count sexual assault in the fourth degree (53a-73a(a)(1)(A)), and one count burglary in the second degree (53a-102(a)); sentenced to combined prison and probation terms.
- Appeal challenged admission of uncharged misconduct evidence, restricted cross-examination on intoxication, and sufficiency of evidence/ acquittal motions; Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior uncharged misconduct evidence | Court properly admitted to show motive/intent | Evidence was remote, dissimilar, and unduly prejudicial | Court did not abuse discretion; proper limiting instruction given |
| Restriction on cross-examination about intoxication | Cross-exam should establish blackout/ BAC effects to negate intent | Defendant should be allowed to probe intoxication evidence | Court properly limited cross-examination; no constitutional violation |
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove touching and intent | Evidence supported touching and specific intent | Evidence showed only an attempted touching and intoxication negates intent | Sufficient evidence and valid consideration of intoxication; acquittal motions denied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008) (limited propensity exception for uncharged sexual misconduct; balancing test; cautionary instruction)
- State v. Orr, 291 Conn. 642 (2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary decisions; preserve error review)
- State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618 (2007) (unproved general rule on admissibility of prior misconduct for specific purposes)
- State v. James, 211 Conn. 555 (1989) (prior sexual misconduct with same victim admissible for motive/intent; probative value noted)
- State v. Vinal, 198 Conn. 644 (1986) (intoxication as defense not dispositive; jury decides capacity to form intent)
- State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (2010) (constitutional confrontation rights; limits on cross-examination when not relevant)
- State v. Nunes, 260 Conn. 649 (2002) (requirement that trial court consider prejudicial vs. probative balance in admissibility rulings)
- State v. Betancourt, 106 Conn.App. 627 (2008) (credibility and jury weighing of witness testimony; appellate deference)