State v. Danovan T., 170 A.3d 722

Background

Defendant Danovan T. lived with victim S.R., her mother S, and another child; on June 5–6, 2013 S.R. reported that the defendant entered her bedroom at night and digitally penetrated her.
Medical exams: PA Jeffery Sievering observed an enlarged clitoris (testifying an enlarged clitoris could be caused by repeated trauma or manipulation); nurse practitioner Audrey B. Courtney prepared a hospital report that included S’s statement that the defendant’s fifteen‑year‑old daughter had made similar allegations.
The defendant gave multiple statements to police, including: “I can’t say that she’s lying,” “I must have done it,” and a written statement admitting a high probability he had inappropriately touched S.R.; he also suggested a sleepwalking explanation.
Charged with first‑degree sexual assault and two counts of risk of injury to a child; jury convicted on two counts of risk of injury (sexual assault count later nolled).
On appeal defendant argued prosecutorial improprieties (improper golden‑rule argument, misstating medical testimony, facilitating admission of a report containing prior‑misconduct allegations) and that the trial court improperly limited his right to present impeachment/confrontation evidence.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Danovan)	Held
Whether prosecutor’s closing invited an improper “golden rule” appeal by asking jurors to put themselves in defendant’s position	Prosecutor reasonably asked jurors to assess whether a reasonable person would respond the way defendant did; rhetorical device tied to evidence	Statements personalized the case and appealed to jurors’ passions, undermining fairness	Not improper: framed as drawing reasonable inferences; permissible rhetorical device; no reversal
Whether prosecutor misstated Sievering’s medical testimony (saying sexual contact was “likely” cause)	Misstatements were isolated, minor and within leeway afforded in closing; jurors heard the actual testimony	Prosecutor suggested a stronger causal link than witness did ("could" v. "likely"), prejudicing jury	Not improper: minor isolated misstatements in context of whole trial; no due process violation
Whether prosecutor improperly facilitated admission of Courtney’s medical report that referenced prior misconduct (another stepdaughter’s allegation)	Report was admitted by agreement of parties; defense used the report in closing; S had already testified about defendant’s statement referencing the other allegation	Prosecutor represented he would not present prior misconduct evidence and then allowed report with such content, prejudicing defendant	Not improper: admission by agreement, not sole source of prior‑misconduct info, defense exploited report; no prosecutorial impropriety found
Whether trial court’s exclusion of certain impeachment testimony (defendant’s own testimony and L’s testimony) violated confrontation/impeachment rights	Court properly ruled on admissibility; issues either not preserved below or exclusion rested on independent, unchallenged grounds (rape‑shield/statutory limits)	Exclusion prevented presentation of testimony that would contradict S and impeach credibility, violating confrontation rights	Declined to review: defendant failed to raise same argument below as to his own testimony; claim re L was moot because he didn’t challenge the statutory ground for exclusion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (analysis framework for prosecutorial impropriety and prejudice)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (factors for evaluating prosecutorial misconduct)
State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (definition and danger of golden‑rule argument)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (admissibility of prior sexual misconduct evidence)
State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71 (contextual review of prosecutor’s remarks; avoid dissecting isolated comments)
State v. Dawes, 122 Conn. App. 303 (permissibility of inviting jurors to draw reasonable inferences)
State v. Hickey, 135 Conn. App. 532 (no need to assess prejudice if no impropriety identified)
State v. LaVoie, 158 Conn. App. 256 (prosecutor must not state facts not in evidence)
State v. Chankar, 173 Conn. App. 227 (leeway afforded counsel in closing argument)