State v. Anwar S.
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 139
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- In 2008, T lived with her mother, half brother, and the defendant in Connecticut; later moved out with mother.
- T disclosed to her mother in 2008 that the defendant had engaged in inappropriate sexual conduct; a prior investigation followed.
- In July 2008, the defendant allegedly sexually assaulted T during a visit; T later reported multiple assaults over three years.
- T was examined at Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic; specimens were taken and tested for chlamydia, yielding positive results in Connecticut and California follow-up tests.
- Murphy, a pediatric nurse practitioner, coordinated medical testing and reported test results; California tests were done for confirmatory purposes and medical treatment.
- Defendant moved in limine to preclude lab results as testimonial hearsay and to admit collateral sexual history evidence under § 54-86f; the court denied the in limine and admitted some evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Yale lab results under Crawford | Yale results are testimonial and violate confrontation rights | Laboratory reports are testimonial hearsay | Not testimonial; confrontation clause not violated; admissible |
| Admissibility of California lab results under 54-86f | California results are testimonial and must be excluded | California results are admissible for medical and corroborative purposes | Not testimonial; admission proper |
| Admission of evidence under § 54-86f regarding victim's past sexual history | Evidence relevant to alternate sources and credibility | Evidence highly probative but prejudicial; should be admitted under 54-86f | Court did not abuse discretion in excluding collateral sexual history evidence |
| Admission of Uncle J.B. collateral sexual assault evidence under third party culpability | Uncle J.B. could be an alternate source for infection and knowledge | Collateral assault is relevant to motive and credibility | Court did not abuse discretion; collateral evidence not directly probative |
| Admission of chlamydia evidence as proof of sexual contact | Chlamydia evidence corroborates that T had sexual contact with the defendant | Chlamydia evidence is irrelevant/unfairly prejudicial | Court properly admitted as relevant and probative; not unduly prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause defines testimonial statements)
- Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813 (U.S. 2006) (primary purpose test for testimonial vs. nontestimonial statements)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (certificates of analysis treated as testimonial affidavits)
- Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 564 U.S. 647 (U.S. 2011) (analyst’s certification is testimonial when tied to lab results)
- Williams v. Illinois, 132 S. Ct. 2221 (U.S. 2012) (laboratory work divided among technicians; purpose matters)
- State v. Slater, 285 Conn. 162 (Conn. 2008) (multidisciplinary team context; medical testimony not automatically testimonial)
- State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2007) (team context; police involvement alone does not render statements testimonial)
- State v. Brown, 112 Conn. App. 131 (Conn. 2009) (confrontation analysis focuses on reasonable expectation of use at trial)
- State v. Cecil J., 291 Conn. 813 (Conn. 2009) (offer of proof requirements for § 54-86f evidence)
- State v. Martinez, 295 Conn. 758 (Conn. 2010) (relevance and offer of proof standards for evidentiary claims)