State v. Dubuisson, 183 Conn. App. 62

Victim and defendant were in an intimate relationship; defendant lived in victim’s home.
On Feb. 22, 2015, after a domestic dispute about shoveling and the dog, defendant allegedly pushed the victim against a wall, put fingers in her trachea, wrapped his hand around her neck and strangled her.
Victim testified she could not breathe for 30–60 seconds, "saw black," went limp, and urinated; about an hour later she called friend Michelle Perez sounding fearful and raspy and said she had been strangled.
Perez and a trooper observed fresh red marks/fingerprint-like marks on the victim’s neck; victim later sought emergency care—imaging was normal but later diagnosed with tracheal inflammation and anxiety.
Defendant was charged with strangulation in the second degree; convicted by a jury and sentenced. He appealed challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence and (2) admission of Perez’s testimony about the victim’s phone statements under the spontaneous-utterance hearsay exception.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for § 53a-64bb strangulation (intent and actual impediment)	State: Victim’s testimony of manual neck restraint, inability to breathe 30–60 sec, loss of consciousness, plus observable neck marks and later medical diagnosis support intent and actual impediment	Dubuisson: Medical/physical signs commonly supporting strangulation were absent; conviction rests on victim testimony and hearsay; credibility issues and possible motive to fabricate	Affirmed — viewing evidence favorably to prosecution, jury reasonably could find intent to impede breathing and that breathing was impeded beyond a reasonable doubt
Admissibility of victim’s out-of-court statements to Perez as spontaneous utterances	State: Statements made shortly after the assault while defendant remained outside; victim sounded fearful/anxious/raspy—stressful circumstances negate deliberation	Dubuisson: Statements were made about an hour later and after a prior phone call, giving time to reflect and fabricat e; therefore not spontaneous	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; totality (time, defendant’s continued presence, victim’s distress) supported spontaneity and lack of opportunity for reflection

State v. Morel, 172 Conn. App. 202 (2017) (sufficiency review framework and application to evidence combinations)
State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97 (2017) (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
State v. Linder, 172 Conn. App. 231 (2017) (elements of § 53a-64bb strangulation offense)
State v. Pugh, 176 Conn. App. 518 (2017) (deference to trial court’s admission of spontaneous utterances)
State v. Daley, 161 Conn. App. 861 (2015) (factors to consider in spontaneous utterance analysis)
State v. Kirby, 280 Conn. 361 (2006) (no fixed time limit for spontaneity; case-by-case inquiry)
State v. Gregory C., 94 Conn. App. 759 (2006) (statements held not spontaneous after long delay and intermediate communications)
State v. Liborio A., 93 Conn. App. 279 (2006) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
State v. Stange, 212 Conn. 612 (1989) (statements 15–30 minutes after shooting admissible as spontaneous)
State v. Arluk, 75 Conn. App. 181 (2003) (statements 20–30 minutes after event admissible as spontaneous)