126 Conn. App. 437
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Albert V. Farah was convicted after a jury trial of seven counts of sexual assault in the second degree and two counts of risk of injury to a child.
- Victims included D (14 at time of assaults), her sister S (15 at that time), and M (14 at start; later corroborated by R); Farah paid them for sexual acts and provided alcohol or drugs on some occasions.
- The offenses occurred in Hartford/Manchester/New Britain areas between 1999 and 2001; police learned of the assaults during an unrelated investigation involving other victims.
- Farah moved to compel disclosure of confidential Department of Children and Families records for exculpatory material; the trial court required a preliminary showing before in camera review under Esposito and related precedents.
- During trial, Farah sought to question D about prior sexual conduct under 54-86f; the court barred M’s and S’s histories and limited D’s cross-examination, citing rape shield and relevance concerns.
- Farah was sentenced to fifty years with execution suspended after 30 years and 35 years of probation; he appealed the evidentiary rulings and related constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by not ordering in camera review of department records for exculpatory material | Farah seeks disclosure of department records under §17a-28(l) as exculpatory material. | State failed to provide exculpatory material; due process requires review. | Court did not abuse discretion; no threshold showing made for exculpatory material. |
| Whether the court violated Farah's rights by prohibiting inquiry into victims' sexual histories under §54-86f | Defense sought to pierce rape shield for D’s possible confusion and other victims’ histories. | Evidence of prior sexual conduct is highly prejudicial and largely irrelevant. | Court properly restricted inquiries; in light of Kulmac, no error in excluding D’s and others’ sexual histories. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (Conn. 1984) (set forth Esposito procedure for in camera review of privileged material)
- State v. Leduc, 40 Conn.App. 233 (Conn. App. 1996) (threshold showing required for in camera review of confidential records)
- State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 (Conn. 1994) (trial court's discretion on rape shield and potential confusion in cross-examination)
- State v. Berube, 256 Conn. 742 (Conn. 2001) (in camera review considerations for confidential records)
- State v. McClelland, 113 Conn.App. 142 (Conn. App. 2009) (threshold for confrontation-rights related disclosure issues)
- State v. Rolon, 257 Conn. 156 (Conn. 2001) (confrontation rights and admissibility standards in complex evidentiary disputes)
- State v. Malon, 96 Conn.App. 59 (Conn. App. 2006) (rape shield implications on confrontation and due process)
- State v. Clifford P., 124 Conn.App. 176 (Conn. App. 2010) (policy-based exclusions under 54-86f for prior sexual conduct)
- State v. Adorno, 121 Conn.App. 534 (Conn. App. 2010) (constitutional balancing in evidentiary constraints on defense)