158 Conn.App. 646
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Carlos E. was convicted of three counts of risk of injury to a child for abusing the victim in 2003/2004 and threatening her to prevent disclosure.
- Victim, born August 1993, disclosed abuse in 2011 after pregnancy; police investigated; defendant gave a written statement.
- Trial evidence centered on defendant's theory that abuse occurred only when his wife was present; his wife and children testified.
- Amended long form information changed the alleged abuse dates from 2004 to 2003 after trial had begun; court allowed amendment.
- Defense argued prejudice from the amended dates; prosecution argued amendment did not change the offense charged.
- Defendant appealed, challenging (a) amendment, (b) admission of his statement with double hearsay, and (c) prosecutorial impropriety in closing; court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment of information and prejudice | State contends amendment without delay caused no prejudice. | Carlos E. argues amended dates violated due process and prejudice defense. | Amendment upheld; no prejudice shown to due process. |
| Admission of statement without redaction | State asserts the contested sentence was not hearsay and was cumulative; admissible. | Doubles hearsay and should have been redacted to avoid prejudice. | Admissibility upheld; any error harmless and cumulative evidence. |
| Prosecutorial impropriety in closing | State argues closing comments were proper inference from evidence and fair comment. | Prosecutor engaged in improper sarcasm, expressed opinions, and stated facts not in evidence. | Not reversible; improper comments did not deprive defendant of fair trial under Williams framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Enrique F., 146 Conn. App. 824 (Conn. App. 2013) (amendment requires showing no prejudice to substantive rights)
- State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796 (Conn. 1998) (deferential standard for evidentiary rulings; harm standard for nonconstitutional errors)
- State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (factors for determining prosecutorial impropriety impact on due process)
- State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336 (Conn. 2002) (harmless error when improperly admitted evidence is cumulative)
- State v. Bermudez, 274 Conn. 581 (Conn. 2005) (prosecutor may argue witness credibility and lack of motive to lie)