State v. Gary S., 345 Conn. 387

Background

Defendant (biological father) repeatedly sexually assaulted his daughter S from about age 12 (2002) through age 16 (last incident Dec. 2006); assaults included vaginal intercourse, oral sex, and cunnilingus; threats deterred disclosure.
Defendant also attempted to force his granddaughter A (age 6–7, 2007–2008) to perform oral sex and then digitally penetrated her; A resisted and later disclosed in 2017.
Victims delayed reporting until 2017; S first told her half-sister T, who then revealed her own prior abuse by defendant; A then disclosed; police investigated; no forensic evidence due to delay.
State charged eight counts: counts 5–7 alleged sexual assault in the second degree of S under Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-71(a)(4) (actor a guardian or otherwise responsible for general supervision) for ‘‘uncertain dates’’ between 3/30/2003 and 12/31/2006; count 3 charged risk of injury to a child re: A under §53-21(a)(2).
Jury convicted on all counts; on appeal the state conceded insufficient evidence for count 3 (A); defendant also challenged sufficiency on counts 5–7 and alleged prosecutorial improprieties in closing/rebuttal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for risk of injury charge (A)	Evidence (A’s testimony) supports contact or subjecting A to contact with defendant’s intimate parts	A successfully resisted oral contact; no evidence she contacted defendant’s intimate parts	State conceded insufficiency; conviction on count 3 reversed and judgment of acquittal directed
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant was “responsible for general supervision” of S (counts 5–7)	Testimony showed defendant lived with and cared for S, was sole adult when D worked, assaults occurred when he resided there; jury may infer supervisory responsibility	Defendant was only a babysitter or intermittently present; state failed to prove he supervised S during the charged period	Evidence sufficient; jury reasonably could find defendant (biological father cohabiting and sole adult) was responsible for S’s general supervision; convictions on counts 5–7 affirmed
Prosecutor’s emotional appeals (references to vulgar comments during assaults)	Remarks summarized trial evidence and supported theory why S delayed reporting; relevant to intent and contact	Remarks were inflammatory appeals to passion and improper personal attacks	Remarks were grounded in testimony, relevant, and not an impermissible personal attack; not reversible error
Prosecutor’s unsworn testimony/vouching (remarks about D’s remarriage and domestic violence)	Some comments were offered to explain delay and credibility and responded to defense argument	Remarks improperly vouched for witnesses and violated limiting instruction on use of D’s abuse evidence	Remarks about D’s remarriage/domestic‑violence characterization were improper but isolated, not severe, defense invited or failed to object, and curative jury instructions cured any prejudice; verdict stands except as to count 3

Key Cases Cited

State v. Burney, 189 Conn. 321 (Conn. 1983) (interpreting “responsible for the general supervision” as requiring obligations similar to guardianship; temporary babysitting insufficient)
State v. Lamantia, 336 Conn. 747 (Conn. 2021) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Courtney G., 339 Conn. 328 (Conn. 2021) (two‑step analysis for prosecutorial impropriety and harmlessness framework)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (factors for assessing whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived defendant of fair trial)
State v. Singh, 259 Conn. 693 (Conn. 2001) (limits on prosecutor’s appeals to emotion and prohibition on unsworn testimony/vouching)
State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244 (Conn. 1989) (biological parents are not exempt from prosecution under the supervision/guardian subsection)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (Conn. 2006) (harmlessness and evaluation of cumulative impropriety)