State v. Freddy T., 200 Conn.App. 577

Background

Allegation: In October 2015 the defendant was accused of repeatedly sexually touching and penetrating his then five‑year‑old daughter; the grandmother reported the conduct and police were contacted.
Initial medical contact: On Oct. 19 the child was examined in the emergency department by Dr. Della‑Giustina (a brief “head‑to‑toe” exam including a cursory genital/rectal check that showed no trauma); a hospital social worker also interviewed the child and made a DCF report.
Forensic interview: On Oct. 23 a licensed clinical social worker, Brenda Concepcion, conducted a forensic interview at the Center for Family Justice while a multidisciplinary team observed; Concepcion recommended follow‑up mental health services and a forensic medical exam.
Trial evidence: The state sought to admit portions of the recorded forensic interview under the medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception (§ 8‑3(5)); the court admitted excerpts and the jury viewed them.
Verdict & appeal: The jury convicted on two counts of risk of injury to a child, deadlocked on first‑degree sexual assault (nolle prosequi entered); defendant appealed, principally arguing the forensic interview was inadmissible under the medical‑treatment exception and that its admission was harmful.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of child’s statements under the medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception (§ 8‑3(5))	Forensic interview statements were reasonably pertinent because interview served multiple interests including medical follow‑up; Concepcion referred the child for physical and mental treatment, so foundation exists.	The interview was investigative, occurred after initial medical care, and the child did not understand it as medical; statements therefore not made for purposes of obtaining diagnosis/treatment.	Court abused its discretion: child’s statements did not show she understood interview had a medical purpose and the questioning was primarily investigative.
Harmlessness of erroneous admission	(Implicit) Any error was harmless because other evidence supported conviction.	Admission was prejudicial because case depended on child’s credibility and the interview supplied the most damaging, uncorroborated allegations.	Error was not harmless: video excerpts materially affected the verdict (no physical corroboration, child’s trial testimony inconsistent, jury deadlocked on more serious charge). New trial ordered.
Court’s in camera review/disclosure of child records	State relied on trial court discretion to review and limit disclosure.	Defendant sought disclosure; argued court abused discretion by withholding certain records.	Court declined to rule on this claim because reversal was required on evidentiary ground; left to trial court on remand.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (discusses when forensic interview statements may be admitted under medical‑treatment exception)
State v. Estrella J.C., 169 Conn. App. 56 (upheld admission where interview informed subsequent medical exam and treatment)
State v. Eddie N.C., 178 Conn. App. 147 (admitted forensic interview that aided a physician’s follow‑up exam)
State v. Manuel T., 186 Conn. App. 51 (emphasizes declarant’s understanding of interview’s medical purpose as the focus)
State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (explains medical‑treatment hearsay exception and rationale)
State v. Donald M., 113 Conn. App. 63 (child’s interview admissible when record shows child understood interview’s treatment purpose)
State v. Telford, 108 Conn. App. 435 (addresses inferential foundations for young children under the exception)
State v. Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770 (discusses significance of jury deadlock and closeness of case in harmless‑error analysis)