State v. Devon D., 150 Conn.App. 514

Defendant Devon D. was convicted after a single jury trial on eleven offenses across three dockets involving three victims (C1, C2, C3).
The three informations were joined for one trial, raising a severance challenge under Boscarino factors after evidence involving one victim appeared potentially inadmissible in the other cases.
The State argued cross-admissibility under common scheme or plan and DeJesus guidelines; the defense argued substantial prejudice from joinder given dissimilar conduct across victims.
C1’s allegations were far more egregious and distinct from C2 and C3, with extensive sexual-contact and exploitation claims including vaginal penetration, ejaculation, and pornographic exposure.
C2 and C3 involved different, less egregious conduct, though some similar acts (e.g., finger into butt while bathing) were alleged; no physical evidence of abuse was found on exam, and the defense argued GF fabricated the claims.
The trial court denied severance, citing Boscarino factors, and instructed the jury to consider counts separately but permitted cross-use of evidence for propensity across cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joinder of three informations violated the defendant’s right to a fair trial due to lack of cross admissibility	C1 cross admissibility in C2/C3 lacking.	Boscarino factors and Gupta require severance to avoid prejudice.	Joinder was improper; severance required; remand for new trials.
Whether the state’s use of a dog to comfort C1 during testimony was lawful	Dog presence permitted to aid witness under § 54-86g(b) and court discretion.	§ 54-86g(b) does not authorize a live dog; trial court failed to show necessity; prejudice to defendant.	Court abused discretion; remand for new trials; dog use not justified by statute and not supported by necessity findings.

State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714 (Conn. 1987) (joint trial risks prejudice; Boscarino factors guide severance analysis)
State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 (Conn. 2010) (propensity evidence and cross admissibility in joined cases; abuse of discretion standard)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 470 (Conn. 2008) (liberal common plan or scheme exception; admissibility of uncharged sexual misconduct)
State v. Ellis, 270 Conn. 337 (Conn. 2004) (multiple victims; improper joinder; evidence cross-admissibility and jury instruction limitations)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (Conn. 2012) (revises joinder presumptions after Gupta/Payne context; Boscarino factors interplay)