State v. Donald H. G.
2014 Conn. App. LEXIS 71
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Victim (born 1992) is the defendant’s niece and alleged multiple sexual assaults occurred between 2002–2009, including several incidents at the defendant’s workplace and at family Christmas parties. Charges included first‑ and third‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; jury convicted on five counts and acquitted on one first‑degree charge.
- The state sought to introduce testimony about several instances of uncharged sexual misconduct (additional incidents beyond the charged events) to prove intent/motive and demonstrate a lustful inclination toward the victim. The court admitted the uncharged misconduct after a pretrial hearing and gave limiting instructions.
- Defendant moved for an in camera review of the victim’s psychological/counseling records asserting potential impeachment and inconsistency (e.g., alleged Vermont intercourse disclosure); the court denied the request for lack of a threshold showing.
- During deliberations the jury asked to see certain police reports and detective notes that had been marked for identification only; the court instructed the jury those documents were not evidence and that the evidence consisted of witness testimony and admitted exhibits. Defense argued that instruction should have clarified testimony about those documents could be considered.
- Defendant alleged prosecutorial improprieties in closing/rebuttal (asking jury to convict ‘‘of what we know he did’’; prosecutor saying he knew the state’s expert was ‘‘an authority’’). Trial court sustained one objection and declined to strike the other remark; defendant appealed on multiple grounds.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of uncharged sexual misconduct evidence | Evidence was admissible as relevant to motive/intent, not overly remote or unfairly prejudicial; limiting instructions mitigate prejudice | Admission of three uncharged incidents (six total with charged incidents) was unduly prejudicial and outweighed probative value | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence relevant to intent/motive and limiting instructions minimized prejudice |
| In camera review of victim's psychological records | No reasonable ground shown that records would reveal mental condition affecting testimonial capacity; defendant’s request was speculative | Records likely contained impeaching/exculpatory statements (e.g., alleged Vermont intercourse) and warranted in camera review | Affirmed: defendant failed threshold showing; request was speculative and court properly denied review |
| Jury supplemental instruction about identification exhibits | Court properly answered jury that the reports/notes were not evidence and reiterated that testimony and admitted exhibits are the evidence | Instruction should have explicitly told jurors they could consider witness testimony about those documents (to avoid confusion) | Affirmed: instruction, read with main charge, was adequate; no reasonable probability jury was misled |
| Prosecutorial impropriety in closing/rebuttal | Remarks were comments on evidence and permissible inference‑drawing; limited sustained objection; not so egregious to deny fair trial | Prosecutor vouched, lowered burden, and improperly expressed personal knowledge/opinion about expert and guilt | Affirmed: defendant failed to show remarks were improper or that they deprived him of a fair trial; comments were permissible or harmless in context |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2008) (adopted limited propensity exception allowing prior sexual misconduct evidence to show tendency for aberrant sexual behavior if not too remote, similar, and against similar victims)
- State v. Sanseverino, 291 Conn. 574 (Conn. 2009) (clarifying aspects of DeJesus)
- State v. James, 211 Conn. 555 (Conn. 1989) (prior misconduct with same complainant admissible to show lustful inclination)
- State v. Nunes, 260 Conn. 649 (Conn. 2002) (trial court must perform balancing test and record must permit inference that court considered prejudice vs. probative value)
- State v. George A., 308 Conn. 274 (Conn. 2013) (standard of review and defendant’s burden to show harmfulness of erroneous admission of uncharged misconduct)
- State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 (Conn. 1989) (expert testimony may explain general behavioral characteristics of child abuse victims and delayed disclosure)