State v. Carlos P.
157 A.3d 723
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Victim: a three‑year‑old girl; defendant (her father) visited and was intoxicated on Nov. 21, 2012. Mother briefly left apartment; on return found victim with pants/down and defendant nearby with pants unbuckled. Mother called police.
- Medical/exam: sexual assault nurse examiner collected swabs; forensic testing found seminal fluid protein (p30) and DNA consistent with defendant or same paternal lineage.
- Charges and trial: defendant convicted by jury of sexual assault in the first degree (§ 53a‑70(a)(2)), attempted sexual assault in the first degree (§§ 53a‑49 & 53a‑70(a)(2)), risk of injury to a child, and sexual assault in the fourth degree (§ 53a‑73a(a)(1)(A)). One count of risk of injury was dismissed pre‑submission.
- Procedural posture on appeal: defendant raised (1) double jeopardy claims (challenging convictions for both the greater and lesser offenses), (2) a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike, and (3) a claim that the court abused its discretion by not producing all of the mother’s psychiatric/medical records.
- Trial court made an in‑camera review of mother’s voluminous mental‑health records, disclosed selected summaries with mother’s consent, and limited defense access; mother’s psychiatric/substance‑abuse history was elicited at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy: conviction for both sexual assault in the first degree and attempted sexual assault in the first degree | Two convictions are proper because the charging instruments included both counts | Attempt is a lesser‑included offense of the completed sexual assault; convicting both punishes same offense twice | Vacated attempt conviction as it is a lesser‑included offense of the completed first‑degree sexual assault (remand for resentencing) |
| Double jeopardy: convictions for sexual assault in the first degree and fourth degree | Statutes criminalize different elements (intercourse v. sexual contact with intent for gratification/degradation) | Both arise from same act and legislature intended parallel/overlapping protection for under‑13 victims | Rejected; convictions can stand together because each crime requires an element the other does not ( |
| no double jeopardy violation) | |||
| Batson challenge to prosecution’s peremptory strike of venireperson M.B. | Peremptory strike was race/ethnicity neutral and supported by voir dire answers (confusion, articulation, concerns about judgment) | Strike was pretextual and discriminatorily targeted a Brazilian/ethnic minority juror | Rejected; trial court’s factual finding that the prosecutor’s reason was race‑neutral was supported by record and not clearly erroneous |
| Disclosure of mother’s psychiatric/medical records | Trial court’s in‑camera review and limited disclosure satisfied defense’s confrontation rights; summaries given were sufficient | Court abused discretion by not producing more records that could impeach mother’s credibility/perception | Rejected; appellate in‑camera review found records largely duplicative, trial court did not abuse discretion; any error would be harmless given overwhelming evidence (including DNA) |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (establishes four‑part test for unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (double jeopardy statutory‑elements test)
- State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 (remedy: vacate lesser‑included conviction when convicted of both greater and lesser offenses)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (peremptory strikes based on race violate Equal Protection; three‑step Batson framework)
- State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (procedures for in‑camera review and disclosure of confidential psychiatric records for confrontation/impeachment)