State v. Halili, 168 A.3d 565

Background

Defendant Skender Halili convicted after jury trial of fourth-degree sexual assault based on the complainant’s account of unwanted sexual touching during a test drive on April 10, 2014.
At trial complainant testified she felt “extremely uncomfortable” and admitted taking an anxiety medication the night before testifying; defense sought to probe psychiatric care and medication further.
Defense wife (Flutura Halili) proffered that the complainant, while alone with Flutura at CVS after filing the police complaint, referenced the husband and the sum “$40,000,” and had behaved “weirdly” on prior store visits; trial court excluded that testimony as speculative/hearsay.
The trial court allowed other cross-examination of the complainant but barred inquiry about whether her medication was prescribed by a psychiatrist and barred the extrinsic evidence from Flutura about the alleged solicitation.
Defendant appealed, claiming (1) confrontation violation from limits on cross-exam re: psychiatric history, (2) denial of right to present a defense by excluding the bribe-solicitation evidence, and (3) erroneous admission of testimony about complainant’s post‑report demeanor (preservation issue).
Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed exclusion of psychiatric‑history questioning but reversed for a new trial because exclusion of the CVS bribery/solicitation evidence infringed the defendant’s confrontation/presentation rights; declined to consider the constancy‑of‑accusation argument as unpreserved.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court abused discretion by barring cross‑examination about complainant’s psychiatric care/medication	Court properly limited irrelevant and un‑founded inquiry; state had inquired about diagnoses	Halili: needed to probe medication/psychiatric care to show perception/recall problems and impeach credibility	Affirmed: exclusion proper — defense lacked foundation/good‑faith basis and did not ask for out‑of‑jury inquiry or offer proof
Whether exclusion of Flutura Halili’s testimony about complainant mentioning “husband” and “$40,000” violated defendant’s confrontation/right to present defense	State: proffer too vague/speculative; not relevant/verbal act; would invite speculation	Halili: evidence showed motive/bias (attempt to solicit payoff) and was admissible impeachment/nonhearsay as a verbal act	Reversed: evidence was sufficiently probative and non‑collateral; exclusion violated confrontation/right to present defense; new trial warranted
Whether admission of witness testimony about complainant’s distraught demeanor after reporting was improper under constancy‑of‑accusation limitations	State: demeanor observations were firsthand and relevant to credibility	Halili: demeanor after formal complaint is suspect and should be constrained under constancy‑of‑accusation doctrine	Not reached on merits: claim forfeited (defense objected only on relevance at trial), so court declined to review

Key Cases Cited

State v. Leconte, 320 Conn. 500 (discusses confrontation clause limits and scope of cross‑examination)
State v. Beliveau, 237 Conn. 576 (identifies ways to establish relevance/foundation for psychiatric‑history inquiry)
State v. Santos, 318 Conn. 412 (when privileged/medical records must yield to defendant’s confrontation right)
State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218 (defines verbal act and nonhearsay use of out‑of‑court statements)
State v. Colton, 227 Conn. 231 (admission of extrinsic evidence showing motive, bias, or interest is not collateral)
State v. Copas, 252 Conn. 318 (circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences standard)
State v. Romanko, 313 Conn. 140 (defendant’s right to present a defense bounded by evidentiary rules)
State v. Merriam, 264 Conn. 617 (harmless‑error factors for excluded evidence)