State v. Cancel, 149 Conn. App. 86

Defendant Santos Cancel was tried on consolidated charges from two related child-victim incidents (victims identified as J. and G.), involving allegations that he cut holes in minors’ underwear and made sexual contact while they slept.
J., age 11, testified that the defendant cut a hole in her underwear and initiated sexual contact; she also reported feeling a "wet" sensation afterward. The jury convicted on sexual assault (fourth degree) and two counts of risk of injury for J.’s case.
G., age 10 and J.’s sibling, testified that she repeatedly woke with holes in her underwear during the period the defendant lived in the home; forensic testing found that multiple items had blade-cut holes and the defendant’s semen on several garments. The jury convicted on sexual assault (fourth degree) and two counts of risk of injury for G.’s case.
The state introduced a stipulation of a prior conviction showing the defendant’s sexual interest in minors; the court instructed the jury the conviction could be considered as evidence of unusual disposition/motive.
The trial court granted the state’s pretrial motion to join the two cases; defense counsel expressly stated she had no objection. The defendant later appealed claiming insufficient evidence as to G. and that joinder was improper.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence as to G.	State: All trial evidence may be considered; forensic and circumstantial evidence plus J.’s testimony and prior conviction support inference defendant cut G.’s underwear and made sexual contact.	Defendant: Evidence specific to G. only shows holes and semen on clothing; without direct testimony of contact, conviction is unsupported; J.’s testimony was not cross-admissible and should be excluded from sufficiency review.	Affirmed: Review considers all evidence introduced at trial; cumulative forensic evidence, pattern established by J.’s testimony and prior conviction permitted reasonable inference of sexual contact with G.; evidence sufficient.
Joinder of J. and G. cases	State: Joinder was proper; evidence was cross-admissible and trial proceeded fairly.	Defendant: Joinder deprived him of a fair trial; challenges were preserved for appeal.	Affirmed (waiver): Defendant waived challenge by expressly consenting to joinder at trial; Golding review unavailable; no plain error review.

State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (addressing limits on joinder and cross-admissibility when trial court does not admit evidence for cross-admissible purposes)
State v. Morelli, 293 Conn. 147 (Conn. 2009) (review of sufficiency of evidence uses all evidence adduced at trial)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for asserting unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2008) (evidence of prior sexual offenses may show propensity/motive for aberrant sexual behavior)
State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617 (Conn. 2003) (distinctive modus operandi permits inference that same actor committed multiple offenses)
State v. Alberto M., 120 Conn. App. 104 (Conn. App. 2010) (contact through clothing can satisfy sexual contact element)