State v. Giovanni P., 110 A.3d 442

Defendant (Giovanni P.) was on sex‑offender probation with conditions including no unsupervised contact with minors; probation began in 2004 after prior convictions for sexual assault and risk of injury to a child.
Allegations arose from conduct toward his son F.P.; a forensic interview of F.P. at a Children’s Advocacy Center (conducted by Erin Byrne) was recorded; mother Marcela C. reported observed sexualized behaviors and relayed statements by F.P.
Defendant was arrested in 2011 and charged with new crimes and with probation violations (new criminal conduct, missed appointments, unsupervised contact with child).
At the probation revocation hearing the court admitted the recorded interview and Marcela C.’s testimony recounting F.P.’s statements; court found by a preponderance that the defendant violated probation and revoked it, imposing an 80‑month sentence.
Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the video interview was inadmissible hearsay and violated his due‑process/right to confront, (2) Marcela C.’s testimony recounting F.P.’s statements was unreliable hearsay, and (3) the state suppressed Brady material about the center’s funding/collaboration.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of recorded forensic interview (hearsay)	Interview falls within medical‑treatment hearsay exception and was relevant/reliable	Interview was not for medical treatment; hearsay exception inapplicable	Court admitted recording under medical‑treatment exception; appellate court finds no abuse of discretion
Denial of opportunity to cross‑examine F.P. (due process)	Admission under established hearsay exception lessens need for balancing; recording reliable	Denied right to confront; no "good cause" to deprive cross‑examination	No due‑process violation: statements admissible under exception so confrontation balancing unnecessary
Admission of Marcela C.’s testimony recounting child’s statements (residual/reliability)	Statements were probative, beyond child’s ken, not coached, and mother’s testimony subject to cross‑examination	Statements unreliable, uncorroborated, mother had bias from contentious divorce	Court permissibly admitted testimony in probation revocation context (hearsay allowed if relevant, reliable, probative)
Brady/suppression of impeachment evidence re: center funding/collaboration	Information was publicly available and not suppressed; defense could have discovered it	State suppressed material impeachment evidence and misled court about interview purpose	No Brady violation: defendant failed to show suppression or materiality; claim fails under Golding review

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (sets due‑process safeguards required in probation/parole revocation proceedings)
Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973) (applies Morrissey protections to probation revocation)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution suppression of favorable material violates due process)
State v. Dollinger, 20 Conn. App. 530 (1990) (factors for admitting child’s out‑of‑court statements under residual hearsay analysis)
State v. Shakir, 130 Conn. App. 458 (2011) (probation hearing standard: hearsay admissible if relevant, reliable, probative)
State v. Hickey, 135 Conn. App. 532 (2012) (upheld admission of victim’s statements to forensic/medical examiner under medical‑treatment exception)
State v. Juan V., 109 Conn. App. 431 (2008) (forensic interview statements of a child may be admissible under medical‑treatment exception)
State v. Carrion, 313 Conn. 823 (2014) (nonexhaustive factors for assessing reliability of a child’s forensic interview disclosure)