State v. Gene C., 2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 22

Defendant Gene C. was convicted after a jury trial of multiple sexual assault and risk of injury charges involving his two daughters, L and M.
Convictions include three counts of first-degree sexual assault, three counts of second-degree sexual assault, two counts of fourth-degree sexual assault, and seven counts of risk of injury to a child.
Defendant challenged the verdict on two grounds: denial of a posttrial motion for judgment of acquittal and admission of constancy of accusation testimony.
Victims L and M testified to repeated assaults starting when they were six or seven years old; their aunt testified about M’s statements.
Before trial, the court granted a motion to preclude post-charge constancy testimony; trial proceeded with constancy testimony from the aunt regarding pre-charge statements.
On appeal, the court upheld the convictions and affirmed the admissibility ruling, concluding sufficient evidence supported guilt and the constancy testimony was properly admitted under controlling doctrine.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for guilt	State argues testimony by L and M suffices to prove all offenses.	Gene C. contends lack of corroborating physical evidence undermines guilt.	Sufficient evidence supported the verdict; credibility of witnesses for sexual offenses rests with the jury.
Admission of constancy of accusation testimony	State contends aunt’s testimony properly corroborates victim’s complaint under the doctrine.	Gene C. argues post‑complaint or school reporting timing limits admissibility.	Constancy testimony properly admitted; timing aligned with controlling precedent allowing pre‑police reports corroboration.

State v. Monk, 198 Conn. 430, 503 A.2d 591 (1986) (victim testimony alone can sustain sexual assault convictions)
State v. Brice, 186 Conn. 449, 442 A.2d 906 (1982) (capacity of victim testimony to sustain convictions)
State v. Russell, 101 Conn. App. 298, 922 A.2d 191 (2007) (credibility determinations are for the jury)
State v. Altayeb, 126 Conn. App. 383, 11 A.3d 1122 (2011) (appellate deference to witness credibility)
State v. Antwon W., 118 Conn. App. 180, 982 A.2d 1112 (2009) (constancy of accusation doctrine origins and scope)
State v. Samuels, 273 Conn. 541, 871 A.2d 1005 (2005) (limits and purpose of constancy testimony; prepolice timelines)
State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597, 935 A.2d 975 (2007) (bright-line trigger for constancy testimony is victim reporting to police)
State v. McKenzie-Adams, 281 Conn. 486, 915 A.2d 822 (2007) (post‑complaint statements inadmissible for constancy purposes)