State v. Dearing, 133 Conn. App. 332

Defendant Robert Dearing was convicted by jury of first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child after trial in the Connecticut Appellate Court.
The victim, born in 2000, has pervasive developmental disorder and was eight or nine years old during the events; she referred to Dearing as Uncle Rob, though no familial relation existed.
The father frequently left the victim with Dearing while working on automobiles in Dearing's garage adjoining the living room where the victim watched television.
Allegations emerged after the victim, during several occasions in 2008, disclosed misconduct by Dearing, including statements that she needed to be cleaned and that Dearing touched her private parts with his body parts.
Forensic interviews and statements by the victim, parents, and investigators formed the core evidence, including doll demonstrations of penile-vaginal and penile-anal contact.
Dearing argued on appeal that the victim was incompetent to testify, that a prosecutor’s hypothetical to an expert improperly addressed the ultimate issue, and that prosecutorial improprieties affected the trial; the court affirmed the conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Victim competency to testify	Dearing contends victim was incompetent.	Dearing asserts undeniable incompetency due to inability to narrate; violates confrontation and defense.	Court affirmed competency; no abuse of discretion.
Hypothetical question to expert	Hypothetical sought ultimate-issue credibility insight.	Question sought an improper opinion on credibility; impermissible.	Question admissible; no constitutional indebiment; not properly preserved for review.
Edell's answer to hypothetical	Answer went to victim credibility.	Edell's answer improperly commented on credibility.	Issue unpreserved for appeal; not reviewed; evidentiary, not constitutional.
Prosecutorial improprieties	Prosecutor improperly framed octopus analogy and mischaracterized evidence.	Analogies and mischaracterizations tainted trial.	Prosecutorial argument within bounds; no due-process violation; cumulative factors not to deny fair trial.

State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797 (2001) (expert testimony regarding credibility cannot conclude victim is truthful)
State v. James, 211 Conn. 555 (1989) (competency and credibility framework for child witnesses)
State v. Aponte, 249 Conn. 735 (1999) (minimum credibility standard for admissible testimony; trial court discretion)
State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (2002) (jurors determine witness credibility; expert testimony on credibility is limited)
State v. Vilalastra, 207 Conn. 35 (1988) (evidentiary rules and constitutional claims in expert testimony)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (1987) (six-factor test for prosecutorial impropriety and due process)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (Golding framework for constitutional review of undisposed evidentiary errors)
State v. Rowe, 279 Conn. 139 (2006) (prosecutorial misstatement re evidence not in record; fairness standard)