State v. Andres C., 349 Conn. 300

Background

Defendant Andres C. was convicted of third‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child after the complainant (C) testified at trial.
On direct/redirect C disclosed she had kept about 200 pages of therapy journals (in Spanish) documenting family matters and the alleged abuse; she later admitted she had read a few pages before testifying and called them the “best record” of the abuse.
Defense counsel requested production; the trial court ordered the state to review the journals for statements relating to the charged incidents and for Brady (exculpatory/impeachment) material, with uncertain portions to be submitted to the court in camera.
Because the journals were in Spanish, prosecutors had a bilingual investigator in the state’s attorney’s office review them; prosecutors submitted four pages to the court, which translated and disclosed one page as potentially impeachment/exculpatory.
The Appellate Court affirmed; the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification to decide (1) whether the journals were discoverable “statements” under Practice Book §§ 40‑13A and 40‑15(1), and (2) whether delegation of the Brady review to a nonlawyer was constitutionally adequate.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Andres C.)	Held
Are the complainant’s therapy journals “statements” under Practice Book §§ 40‑13A and 40‑15(1) requiring disclosure?	Journals are not adopted or approved as formal statements by C, so they are not discoverable under the rule.	C’s testimony that journals were the “best record” of the abuse and that she consulted them before testifying makes them discoverable statements.	Held: Not discoverable. C did not sign, adopt, or intend to be accountable for the journals; many portions were therapeutic/hypothetical rather than formal, adoptive statements.
Did prosecutors violate Brady by delegating the Brady review to a nonlawyer investigator rather than personally reviewing the journals?	Delegation is permissible; prosecutors may seek qualified assistance; no constitutional rule requires the prosecutor personally to do every review.	Because the journals first surfaced at trial, the trial prosecutor was uniquely situated to assess impeachment/exculpatory value and thus must personally review them (prophylactic rule).	Held: No constitutional prohibition on delegation; no prophylactic rule requiring personal review. Prosecutor retains ultimate responsibility; better practice is personal review or use of trained attorneys/staff.
May the court review the State’s alternative ground for affirmance (journals not statements) even though it was not raised below?	The court may consider the unpreserved alternative ground to promote judicial economy, because it presents a pure question of law and could arise on remand.	Alternative ground is unreviewable under Practice Book § 84‑11(b) because it was not raised in the Appellate Court.	Held: Court may review the alternative ground here and resolves the matter on that basis.

Key Cases Cited

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (constitutional requirement to disclose exculpatory evidence)
Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 (concurrence discussing adoption/knowing formalization requirement under Jencks Act)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (context of the trial record matters to Brady determinations; prosecutor responsibility)
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (significance of evidence under Brady often depends on complete record)
United States v. Gotchis, 803 F.2d 74 (adoption requires indication the witness intends to be accountable for contents)
United States v. Melo, 411 F. Supp. 2d 17 (agent/diary/notes not adopted as formal statement when not intended as final record)
United States v. Jennings, 960 F.2d 1488 (no constitutional requirement that prosecutor personally search all materials for Brady compliance)
State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (posttrial Brady procedures/Floyd hearing context)