State v. Griswold, 127 A.3d 189

Defendant Jody Griswold was charged with two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree and two counts of risk of injury to a child for acts alleged on or about July 5, 2010, against girls aged 13 and 11.
After both children testified at trial, the state sought to admit videotaped forensic interviews and written summaries of those interviews; police observed and consulted during the interviews.
Defense objected that the videotaped unsworn statements were hearsay and unduly prejudicial and unnecessary because the children had already testified; the trial court admitted them under the medical diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception (Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3(5)).
The trial court also admitted written summaries of the videotapes over the same objections.
Judge Flynn concurs in the appellate affirmance but would hold the videotapes and summaries were improperly admitted under the medical-diagnosis exception because the interviews’ primary purpose was investigative, not treatment; he deems the error harmless because the evidence was cumulative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of forensic-interview videotapes under medical-diagnosis exception (§ 8-3(5))	State: Interviews were sufficiently connected to medical/diagnostic purpose to fit exception	Griswold: Interviews were investigatory, not for treatment; statements are hearsay and unnecessary after live testimony	Flynn: Admission under § 8-3 was improper because primary purpose was investigative, not medical, but error was harmless
Admissibility under tender-years exception (§ 8-10)	State: Forensic-interview statements by children qualify under tender-years exception	Griswold: Interviews were prepared for prosecution (observed by police) and not spontaneous/treatment driven	Flynn: Factors likewise cut against § 8-10 admissibility; he emphasizes consistency across exceptions but does not fully resolve § 8-10 here
Harmlessness / cumulative evidence	State: Admission was permissible or harmless in context	Griswold: Admission prejudiced the defense, was cumulative and unnecessary	Flynn: Admission was cumulative of live testimony and social-worker testimony; thus any error did not reasonably affect verdict

State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2002) (describing reliability rationale for statements made to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment)
State v. Maguire, 310 Conn. 535 (Conn. 2013) (examining purpose of forensic interviews and skepticism about admitting investigatory interviews under hearsay exceptions)
State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (Conn. 2007) (setting standards for admitting forensic interview evidence)
Swenson v. Sawoska, 215 Conn. 148 (Conn. 1990) (erroneously admitted cumulative evidence is not reversible error)
Kortner v. Martise, 312 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2014) (citing Swenson on cumulative-evidence harmlessness)
In re John C., 20 Conn. App. 694 (Conn. App. 1990) (noting goal of creating a consistent body of law)
State v. Morgan, 86 Conn. App. 196 (Conn. App. 2004) (on applying prior legal principles to provide consistent law)
In re Sean H., 24 Conn. App. 135 (Conn. App. 1991) (discussing indicia of trustworthiness for hearsay exceptions)