State v. Devon D., 138 A.3d 849

Defendant (father) charged in three separate informations with sexual assault and risk of injury based on allegations from three children (C1, C2, C3), his biological children, relating to misconduct during 2006–2009.
Video-recorded forensic interviews of each child were admitted and played to the jury at trial.
Trial court denied defendant’s motion to sever the three cases and instructed that testimony from each child could be considered in the others as evidence of propensity for aberrant sexual behavior; no contemporaneous objection to that instruction.
State moved to allow a trained dog (Summer) to sit near C1 during her live testimony to reduce anxiety; trial court held an evidentiary hearing, found clear and convincing evidence that the dog would assist reliable testimony, and took measures to keep the dog hidden from the jury.
Jury convicted on all counts; Appellate Court reversed, holding (1) joinder was an abuse of discretion and (2) permitting the dog was an abuse of discretion. Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification and reversed the Appellate Court, reinstating convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether joinder of the three informations was proper	Evidence in each case was cross-admissible as prior sexual misconduct showing propensity; joinder therefore appropriate	Joinder prejudiced defendant by aggregating shocking evidence and some attacks (C1) were qualitatively different, making severance necessary	Affirmed trial court: evidence cross-admissible under DeJesus; trial court did not abuse discretion denying severance
Whether trial court abused discretion permitting a comfort dog to sit near C1 while testifying	Trial court has inherent discretion to order accommodations; record showed dog would reduce C1’s anxiety and aid reliable testimony; precautions minimized prejudice	Dog would improperly influence jury sympathy and prejudice defendant; Jarzbek compelling-need standard required	Reversed Appellate Court: Jarzbek (compelling-need for excluding defendant) not applicable; trial court reasonably balanced reliability benefit against prejudice and did not abuse discretion

State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (standards for admitting uncharged sexual misconduct to show propensity)
State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (state bears burden to show joinder will not substantially prejudice defendant)
State v. Payne, 303 Conn. 538 (clarifying joinder standards and burden)
State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683 (requiring clear-and-convincing showing of compelling need when excluding defendant from witness room for videotaped testimony)
State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618 (admission of related misconduct evidence upheld despite differences in specifics)
State v. McKenzie-Adams, 281 Conn. 486 (admission of third-party testimony as evidence of common scheme upheld)
State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 (limits on cross-admissibility where uncharged misconduct lacks similarity)
State v. Ellis, 270 Conn. 337 (comparison of similarity in misconduct for admissibility)