State v. Gode, 145 Conn. App. 1

Victim and defendant were acquaintances and classmates; two incidents alleged: December 23, 2008 (at victim’s grandparents’ home) and May 1, 2009 (ROTC back room).
December incident: victim testified defendant pinned her, removed her clothing, vaginally penetrated her despite her verbal and physical resistance, and threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
May incident: defendant admitted to grabbing the victim’s breasts; a third student witnessed the May touching and reported it.
Defendant’s trial theory: he and the victim were dating in December, the sex was consensual, and he reasonably believed the victim’s conduct indicated consent (he testified she was on top of him).
Procedural posture: consolidated jury trial resulted in convictions for first‑degree sexual assault and related offenses; defendant appealed claiming (1) the court failed to instruct on his reasonable‑belief‑of‑consent theory (Smith instruction) and (2) the court refused an inconstancy‑of‑accusation instruction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether trial court erred by refusing a Smith instruction (reasonable belief in consent)	State: instruction not required where no ambiguity in complainant’s conduct	Gode: entitled to instruction that jury must acquit if his reasonable belief in consent was justified	Court: no Smith instruction warranted — evidence presented two opposing versions (consent v. forcible assault), not an ambiguous victim conduct situation; refusal proper
Whether court erred by refusing an inconstancy‑of‑accusation instruction	State: constancy rule only admits prior complaints to corroborate timing/fact, not to create impeachment where none offered	Gode: jury should be instructed to consider alleged inconsistencies (e.g., victim’s statements to friend A.F.) to discredit her testimony	Court: refusal proper — no constancy evidence introduced to balance; general credibility instruction sufficed; defendant could have used standard prior‑inconsistent statement instruction

State v. Smith, 554 A.2d 713 (Conn. 1989) (defendant may request instruction that jury consider whether complainant’s conduct would justify reasonable belief of consent; instruction warranted only when victim’s conduct is ambiguous)
State v. Jeffrey, 601 A.2d 993 (Conn. 1991) (Smith instruction not appropriate where reasonableness of defendant’s belief in consent was not advanced as defense theory based on ambiguous conduct)
State v. Troupe, 677 A.2d 917 (Conn. 1996) (limits constancy‑of‑accusation evidence to fact and timing of prior complaint; details limited to associating complaint with charge)
State v. Ali, 660 A.2d 337 (Conn. 1995) (trial court must balance constancy evidence instructions so jury may use inconsistencies elicited to impeach complainant when constancy evidence is admitted)
State v. Cotton, 825 A.2d 189 (Conn. App. 2003) (Smith instruction discretionary; not constitutionally required whenever consent is placed at issue)