State v. Hickey, 135 Conn. App. 532

In June 2001 the victim, age five, lived with the defendant and camping trips with his family included the campground where the defendant digitally penetrated the victim while she slept.
In December 2002, the victim disclosed abuse after hearing the word 'sex'; a police report and videotaped interviews followed, relating to the house incident rather than the campground.
The victim underwent a pediatric examination by Moskal-Kanz which found vaginal injuries consistent with penetration; the anal examination was normal.
In 2006 the victim disclosed the campground incident; a second videotaped interview occurred and charges were filed for the campground abuse.
On March 6, 2009, a jury convicted Hickey of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child; sentencing followed on June 12, 2009 to a term of thirty years with twenty years suspended and thirty-five years of probation.
Prior to trial, the state changed the alleged year of abuse from 2002 to 2001; Hickey sought a continuance to investigate and to retain private counsel, which the court denied but offered limited accommodations.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Continuance denial for investigation	Hickey argues denial impeded defense due to date change and witness search	Requests for more time and to hire private counsel were necessary to prepare a defense	Court did not abuse discretion; accommodations offered and time effectively provided
Admission of prior uncharged sexual misconduct	R.N. testimony is admissible to show propensity under DeJesus framework	Evidence too remote and dissimilar; risk of prejudice	Court did not abuse discretion; three-prong test satisfied and similarity supports admission
Admission of medical treatment exception testimony	Moskal-Kanz statements during medical exam relevant for diagnosis and treatment	Examination framed for prosecution, not medical treatment	Court did not abuse discretion; medical treatment purpose supported by evidence
Prosecutorial misconduct	Misconduct occurred with improper remark about witness's records	Remark deprived him of fair trial	No due process denial; curative instructions and overall strong case mitigate prejudice
In camera review of victim's mental health records	Records may bear on credibility; defendant seeks in camera review	Threshold showing of mental condition necessary to justify inspection	Court did not abuse discretion; defendant failed to show threshold condition affecting testimonial capacity

State v. Ross V., 110 Conn.App. 1 (2008) (continuance factors and abuse of discretion guidance)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (2008) (propensity evidence for sex crimes; three-prong relevancy test; cautionary instruction)
State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382 (2004) (similarity and relationship considerations for prior misconduct evidence)
State v. Romero, 269 Conn. 481 (2004) (remoteness in time for prior misconduct evidence)
State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 (1994) (timing of prior misconduct evidence; not too remote)
State v. Andersen, 132 Conn.App. 125 (2011) (limits of admission and cautionary instructions for uncharged misconduct)
State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (2002) (medical treatment exception includes statements made during medical evaluation)
State v. Miller, 121 Conn.App. 775 (2010) (medical treatment exception and physician testimony)