184 Conn. App. 55
Conn. App. Ct.2018Background
- Victim (born 2000) disclosed in June 2014 that defendant sexually abused her from about 2009–2012; she then attended Connecticut Children’s Medical Center and was referred to the Greater Hartford Children’s Advocacy Center.
- On July 9, 2014, clinical child interview specialist Lyndsey Craft conducted a recorded forensic interview at the advocacy center observed from behind a one-way mirror by medical staff, a Department of Children and Families worker, and a police detective.
- Craft’s interview was made part of the victim’s medical record; Craft recommended a medical exam and therapy, and the victim received an exam by Dr. Livingston.
- At trial the victim testified and the state offered the redacted video of the Craft interview under the medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception; the court admitted the video.
- Defendant was convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a minor, among other counts, and appealed arguing (1) the interview statements were not admissible under the medical-treatment hearsay exception because the interview’s primary purpose was investigatory, and (2) Craft impermissibly vouched or offered fact-based expert testimony in violation of Favoccia.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of forensic interview under medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception | Victim’s statements were "reasonably pertinent" to medical diagnosis/treatment (interview in hospital, recorded for medical charting, led to exam/therapy) | Primary purpose of interview was criminal investigation; medical treatment was secondary, so statements are not within the exception | Admitted: Court applied the "reasonably pertinent" standard (Griswold line) and found sufficient evidence that statements were for medical diagnosis/treatment; presence of police did not preclude exception |
| Use of Craft’s testimony (expert testimony/hypotheticals) — alleged indirect vouching (Favoccia) | State: Craft may testify about general/delayed disclosure patterns and factors in hypotheticals based on experience | Defendant: Craft’s testimony related to facts of this case and indirectly vouched for victim; improper and not preserved | Not reviewed on appeal: trial counsel’s objections did not preserve this specific Favoccia-based claim; court gave curative instruction and defendant failed to renew precise objection |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2002) (social worker may be within medical-care "chain" for treatment hearsay exception)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (confrontation clause bars testimonial out-of-court statements unless witness is unavailable and defendant had prior opportunity for cross-examination)
- State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2007) (forensic-interview confrontation analysis and discussion of primary-purpose inquiries)
- State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (Conn. App. 2015) (forensic interview statements offered solely under medical-treatment exception are admissible if reasonably pertinent to diagnosis/treatment)
- State v. Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2012) (expert testimony about child sexual-abuse victim behavior must be limited to general or hypothetical terms to avoid indirect vouching)