State v. Gonzalez, 2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 311

Defendant Juan Carlos Gonzalez and victim cohabited, had three children; relationship involved escalating physical and sexual abuse from ~2005–2012.
Victim reported December 12, 2012 physical abuse; defendant was arrested and a protective order issued December 13, 2012.
Indictment/ information included counts for sexual assault in a cohabiting relationship (five charged; jury convicted on two, acquitted on two others), second‑degree assault, and two counts of criminal violation of a protective order.
At trial, a police officer initially testified the defendant did not provide a sworn, written statement (later stricken); defendant moved for mistrial which was denied.
Court ordered the defendant to wear leg shackles throughout trial except while testifying; court took measures to conceal them and the jury was not shown they existed.
The court admitted testimony of prior uncharged physical and sexual abuse by the defendant against the same victim, with limiting instructions that the evidence was for intent, motive, and system of criminal activity (and, for sexual acts, not barred as propensity under DeJesus).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of mistrial after stricken testimony (officer: no sworn written statement) was abuse of discretion	State: curative instructions and striking the testimony cured any prejudice	Gonzalez: testimony was prejudicial and required mistrial; alternatively asserts Doyle/Miranda issue	Denial not an abuse; striking testimony and instruction adequate; not like Grenier where expert credibility testimony was central
Whether ordering shackles (except while testifying) was improper	State: legitimate security concerns (shortage of marshals, multiple exits, high bond, flight risk, prior behavior) and court hid shackles from jury	Gonzalez: shackling unjustified (due to marshal shortage) and defendant need not prove jury awareness	Court acted within Tweedy standard; articulated reasons and took steps to conceal shackles; defendant failed to show jury knew of restraints
Whether admission of prior uncharged misconduct was improper	State: prior physical/sexual acts against same victim showed intent, motive, and system of criminal activity; probative value > prejudicial effect; limiting instructions given	Gonzalez: evidence was propensity evidence, unduly prejudicial and remote in time for some incidents	Admission was within discretion: acts were against same victim, showed pattern/escalation, limiting instructions given, and prior acts were not more inflammatory than charged acts

State v. Grenier, 257 Conn. 797 (interpreting prejudice from improperly admitted expert credibility testimony)
State v. Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489 (shackling standard; necessity of record justification)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (admission of prior sexual misconduct in sex‑crime cases where relevant)
State v. Kalil, 314 Conn. 529 (prior misconduct admissibility; probative value vs. prejudice)
Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622 (unwarranted visible shackling requires state to show harmlessness)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (post‑Miranda silence generally inadmissible for impeachment)
State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526 (defendant must show stricken testimony was so prejudicial jury likely could not disregard it)
State v. Brawley, 321 Conn. 583 (discussing burden when record silent about jury awareness of restraints)
State v. Eleck, 314 Conn. 123 (defendant bears burden on appeal to prove harm from improperly admitted nonconstitutional evidence)