138 Conn. App. 22
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant Brundage convicted after jury trial on two counts of sexual assault in the first degree and two counts of risk of injury to a child.
- Appeal challenges (1) time-bar dismissal under § 54-193a as amended and (2) use of expert testimony responding to a hypothetical.
- Abuse occurred 1995–2003; victim began reporting in 2007; wounds alleged across Wolcott and Waterbury offenses.
- Pre-2002 statute § 54-193a barred prosecutions; 2002 amendment extended limitations but applies prospectively.
- Two long-form informations filed in 2009 covering offenses in Wolcott (1994–2002) and Waterbury (2000–2002).
- Court held the 2002 amendment applies prospectively; pre-2002 offenses time-barred; remanded for new trial on non-time-barred counts and dismissal of time-barred count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactive effect of § 54-193a | State: current § 54-193a retroactive; Skakel controls retroactivity. | Brundage: amendment prospective only; pre-2002 offenses not revived. | Amendment prospective; pre-2002 offenses time-barred; remand for new trial on non-time-barred counts. |
| Admission of expert testimony to a hypothetical | Edell’s hypothetical testimony admissible as expert on abuse patterns. | Hypothetical improperly implied credibility of the victim. | Court did not abuse discretion; hypothetical allowed with limiting instructions; testimony permissible. |
| Remedy on mixed-time-bar counts | Remand for new trial with remaining timely charges; or dismissal of all counts. | Judgments should be set aside and charges dismissed. | Remand for new trial on non-time-barred counts; one completely time-barred count dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Skakel, 276 Conn. 633 (2006) (statutes of limitations presumptively retroactive unless clear prospective intent)
- State v. Paradise, 189 Conn. 346 (1983) (old retroactivity framework for criminal statutes)
- State v. George J., 280 Conn. 551 (2006) (interprets prospective application of amendments with explicit text)
- State v. Kruelski, 41 Conn. App. 476 (1996) (support for retroactivity considerations in limitations)
- State v. Parsons, 28 Conn. App. 91 (1992) (timeliness defense as trial issue; distinguishes evidentiary timing questions)
- State v. Crespo, 114 Conn. App. 346 (2009) (hypothetical questions about abuse patterns do not validate credibility)
- State v. Iban C., 275 Conn. 624 (2005) (limit on expert testimony opining on victim credibility; distinguish general patterns)