State v. Andres C., 208 Conn.App. 825

Background

Victim (the defendant’s niece) testified to repeated sexual abuse by defendant over several years; she delayed disclosure until age 16.
Victim learned earlier that defendant had allegedly abused her cousin D; family reportedly ostracized D and D’s mother, which victim said influenced her silence.
State moved to admit uncharged misconduct evidence about D; court initially allowed propensity use but later limited admission to the narrow purpose of explaining the victim’s delayed disclosure.
Victim kept ~200 pages of journals in Spanish and reviewed a few pages before testifying; trial court ordered the prosecutor’s office (via a bilingual investigator) to review the journals for exculpatory/Brady material and to submit uncertain portions for in camera review; the defense agreed to that procedure.
After a bench trial the court convicted defendant of sexual assault in the third degree and risk of injury to a child; defendant appealed contesting admission of uncharged misconduct, prosecutorial impropriety, denial of journal access, and an asserted Brady violation.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of uncharged misconduct (D)	Evidence was relevant to explain victim’s delayed disclosure; admissible for that limited purpose	Court abused discretion by allowing propensity evidence and by not striking references after D was not called	Trial court limited the evidence to showing effect on victim’s delay; admission for that purpose was proper and denial of strike was not an abuse of discretion
Prosecutorial impropriety (uncharged evidence, Alford plea, constancy testimony)	Prosecutors had good-faith bases; objections either sustained or evidence admitted properly; any errors were not prejudicial	Prosecutors misled court, sought to introduce inadmissible Alford plea and improper constancy testimony—violating due process	No prosecutorial impropriety amounting to deprivation of fair trial; defendant failed to show lack of good faith or prejudice
Access to victim’s journals (inspection/refreshing memory; Practice Book statements)	Journals are private; court properly exercised discretion under Conn. Code Evid. §6-9(b); state would review for Brady material; defense agreed to procedure	Defendant entitled to full contents because victim reviewed them before testifying and they are "statements" under Practice Book rules	Court did not abuse discretion in denying wholesale disclosure; defendant waived the Practice Book claim by agreeing to the review/in camera procedure
Brady claim — prosecutor must personally review journals	Prosecutor remains ultimately responsible for Brady disclosure and supervised the bilingual investigator’s review; personal review by prosecutor not constitutionally required	Prosecutor’s delegation to a nonlawyer reviewer violated Brady — only prosecutors may satisfy disclosure duty	No constitutional Brady violation shown; delegation under supervision was acceptable and defendant failed Golding prongs for relief

Key Cases Cited

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (U.S. 1970) (describes plea entered under Alford doctrine)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (prosecution must disclose materially exculpatory evidence)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (prosecutor has duty to learn of favorable evidence known to others acting for the government)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2008) (standards for admitting other sexual misconduct evidence)
State v. Sanders, 86 Conn. App. 757 (Conn. App. 2005) (no review where party not aggrieved by ultimate outcome)
State v. Guerrera, 331 Conn. 628 (Conn. 2019) (explains prosecutor’s Brady obligations and constructive knowledge)
United States v. Jennings, 960 F.2d 1488 (9th Cir. 1992) (prosecutor bears ultimate responsibility for Brady compliance; courts should not order prosecutor to personally review all materials)
United States v. Herring, 83 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 1996) (rejects requirement that assistant U.S. attorney personally review files for Brady)