State v. Eddie N. C., 174 A.3d 803

Background

Defendant Eddie N. C. convicted by jury of three counts of first‑degree sexual assault and four counts of risk of injury to a child for sexual abuse of his young cousin A; sentenced to an effective 25 years plus 25 years special parole. A reported abuse on April 9, 2014 and underwent examinations at Waterbury Hospital and Yale‑New Haven; forensic interview followed.
State introduced (1) prior uncharged sexual‑misconduct testimony from the defendant’s cousin S, who alleged similar abuse beginning at age 4–5, and (2) out‑of‑court statements A made to her mother, treating physicians (Drs. Py and Walsh), and a social worker (Vidro) under the medical‑diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception, plus medical records and portions of the forensic interview.
Defendant moved to exclude S’s testimony and the medical‑treatment statements; the trial court admitted both after in limine hearings. Defendant testified at trial and DNA testing did not link him to a biological sample. Jury found defendant guilty on all counts.
On appeal defendant challenged: (1) admission of S’s prior misconduct testimony under Conn. Code Evid. §4‑5(b)/DeJesus, (2) admission of A’s statements under the medical diagnosis/treatment exception, and (3) as plain error, admission of medical providers’ diagnostic opinions and alleged vouching for A. The Appellate Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Admissibility of prior uncharged sexual‑misconduct testimony (S) under propensity exception (§4‑5(b))	Evidence of S’s similar abuse shows defendant’s propensity for aberrant, compulsive sexual behavior; similarities in acts, location, ages, and family relation make it admissible and highly probative	Too remote (12 year gap), dissimilar in frequency/severity and in relationship dynamic (defendant was a minor with S), prejudicial outweighing probative value	Court did not abuse discretion: acts, victims, and context were sufficiently similar; 12‑year gap not dispositive given strength of similarity; probative value outweighed prejudice
2) Admissibility of A’s statements to physicians/social worker under medical‑diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception (§8‑3(5))	Statements were made to obtain diagnosis/treatment or were reasonably pertinent to such care (history, symptoms, identity of abuser); interviews aided medical evaluation	Statements were investigatory, not for medical diagnosis/treatment; not reasonably pertinent	Court found statements to Drs. Py and Walsh and Vidro were reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment; admission not an abuse of discretion
3) Admission of A’s statement to her mother (in car) under medical‑treatment exception	Mother was taking child to hospital to secure medical care; question was motivated by need for treatment	Mother’s questioning was investigatory; not a medical provider; statements not reasonably pertinent	Even assuming error in admitting the mother’s statement, any error was harmless (cumulative, strong corroborating evidence)
4) Plain‑error claim: testimony/records diagnosing sexual assault and alleged expert vouching for A’s credibility	State emphasized medical findings consistent with assault; experts’ diagnostic testimony and any credibility statements were proper or harmless	Experts opined on ultimate issue and vouched for complainant—plain error requiring reversal	Even if improper, not plain error: defense elicited limiting testimony on cross‑examination; state did not rely on improper opinion as cornerstone; corroboration and physical findings meant no manifest injustice

Key Cases Cited

State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (recognizing propensity exception for uncharged sexual misconduct in sex‑crime cases)
State v. Acosta, 326 Conn. 405 (no bright‑line remoteness rule; 12‑year gap may be admissible given other similarities)
State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618 (prior misconduct remoteness not necessarily dispositive)
State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481 (uncharged misconduct admissibility factors)
State v. Antonaras, 137 Conn. App. 703 (factors for similarity: frequency, severity, location, presence of others)
State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382 (differences in duration of abuse do not necessarily preclude similarity)
State v. Ellis, 270 Conn. 337 (improper admission where prior incidents materially differed in severity and relationship dynamics)
State v. Gupta, 297 Conn. 211 (improper admission where prior misconduct was materially more egregious and relationships differed)
State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (medical‑treatment hearsay exception extends to persons within chain of medical care)
State v. Telford, 108 Conn. App. 435 (juvenile statements may be inferred to be for treatment; identity can be pertinent to diagnosis/treatment)
State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (forensic interview statements admissible under medical exception if reasonably pertinent even when interview has investigative elements)
State v. Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770 (limits on expert opinion on ultimate issue; expert vouching concerns)
State v. George A., 308 Conn. 274 (improper expert vouching may be harmless when complainant’s testimony corroborated)
State v. Miguel C., 305 Conn. 562 (standard of review for hearsay exception rulings)
State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278 (plain‑error doctrine; demanding standard)
State v. Rodriguez, 311 Conn. 80 (harmless‑error framework for nonconstitutional evidentiary errors)
State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 (hearsay general principles)