128 Conn. App. 46
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Carrion appeals after being convicted on four counts of sexual assault in the first degree and four counts of risk of injury to a child; two informations were consolidated for trial (Prospect and Waterbury).
- DL, a seven-year-old cousin, alleged sexual abuse by Carrion during visits in Prospect and Waterbury; the alleged conduct occurred 2005–2007.
- A videotaped forensic interview of DL was admitted as evidence; DL subsequently provided testimony at trial inconsistent with the interview.
- The state sought to admit videotape portions as substantive evidence under Whelan and § 8-5; the court allowed admission.
- The two cases were joined, based on cross-admissibility under Sanseverino, and the court instructed the jury accordingly.
- Defendant challenged (on appeal) the videorecording’s admissibility, the joinder of cases, and a jury instruction about innocence vs. guilt; the court affirmed all judgments of conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of the videotaped interview | State; Whelan criteria met, interview admissible | Interview was coercive and unreliable | Admissible; not an abuse of discretion |
| Joinder of Prospect and Waterbury cases | Joinder supported by cross-admissible evidence of common plan | Cases too similar; risk of prejudice | Joinder proper; no reversible error |
| Jury instruction about innocent vs. guilty | Instruction not improper; balanced State’s and defendant’s interests | Instruction bolsters prosecution; harms presumption of innocence | Claim implicit waived under Kitchens; Golding not satisfied |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280 (2000) (reliability of prior inconsistent statements under Whelan; not excluding unless grievously unreliable)
- State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (1986) (prior inconsistent statements admissible if reliability standards met)
- State v. Sanseverino, 287 Conn. 608 (2008) (joinder and cross-admissibility framework for similar offenses)
- State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 (2010) (presumption in favor of joinder; heavy burden to show substantial injustice)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (Golding waiver categories; implicit waiver when defense acquiesces)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)