State v. EDWIN M., 124 Conn. App. 707

Defendant Edwin M. was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree, one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child.
The victim, A, is the child of K and D; H, the couple’s niece, watched the children on days K worked day shifts.
On May 17, 2006, the defendant, then H’s boyfriend, was the only male in the house when the victim was alone with him for several hours, during which the injuries allegedly occurred.
Medical examinations on May 18, 2006 revealed extensive and age-inappropriate injuries to the victim, including injuries to the mouth, genital area, and other body parts.
DNA testing of clothing seized from H’s house showed the victim and the defendant contributed to DNA found on the shorts, and the defendant contributed to DNA on his shirt.
On appeal, the defendant challenged (a) the admission of expert testimony by Geertsma, (b) expert testimony on an ultimate issue, and (c) the sufficiency of the evidence; the appellate court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Plain error for expert testimony	Geertsma qualified; his opinion needed	Geertsma unqualified; plain error	No plain error; admission not reversible error
Ultimate issue testimony	Geertsma's causation testimony aided the jury	Testimony on ultimate issue was improper	Court did not abuse discretion; allowed as expert aid
Sufficiency of evidence on penetration	Circumstantial evidence supported penetration	No direct proof of penetration; insufficient	Circumstantial evidence sufficient to prove penetration and related offense
Sufficiency of evidence on attempt	Actions showed intent and substantial step toward vaginal intercourse	Insufficient for substantial step	Evidence supported substantial step and intent

State v. Carneiro, 76 Conn.App. 425, 820 A.2d 1053 (2003) (plain error review and preservation cautions)
State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278, 963 A.2d 11 (2009) (plain error standard; reversal reserved for extraordinary cases)
State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 972 A.2d 691 (2009) (two-step plain error framework; consequences of error must be grievous)
State v. Popeleski, 291 Conn. 769, 970 A.2d 108 (2009) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed under abuse of discretion)
State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218, 856 A.2d 917 (2004) (trial court discretion in expert testimony admissibility)
State v. Iban C., 275 Conn. 624, 881 A.2d 1005 (2005) (experts may aid on ultimate issues when beyond lay understanding)
State v. Rodgers, 207 Conn. 646, 542 A.2d 1136 (1988) (penetration may be proven circumstantially; expert assistance may be required)
State v. Artis, 198 Conn. 617, 503 A.2d 1181 (1986) (penetration element and circumstantial evidence considerations)
State v. Whitley, 53 Conn.App. 414, 730 A.2d 1212 (1999) (expert testimony on medical effects of injuries in sexual abuse cases)
State v. Reid, 193 Conn. 646, 480 A.2d 463 (1984) (consciousness of guilt as evidence)
State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 618 A.2d 1347 (1993) (intent and substantial step standards in attempt cases)
State v. Beavers, 290 Conn. 386, 963 A.2d 956 (2009) (expert testimony in sexual assault cases)
State v. Rodgers, 207 Conn. 646, 542 A.2d 1136 (1988) (penetration proof and expert testimony in sexual assault)