154 Conn.App. 246
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Defendant Ivan G. S. was tried for sexual offenses involving his two granddaughters (J and N), who testified they were abused during overnight stays in 2009; defendant was convicted of two counts of risk of injury to a child and acquitted of aggravated sexual assault.
- On the penultimate day of trial, parties discovered a previously undisclosed police report by Officer Donald Bensey indicating the girls’ mother initially did not believe the accusations; the report was produced late and proffered by the state as a prior consistent statement.
- Defense counsel objected and moved for a new trial, arguing late disclosure prejudiced cross-examination and trial preparation; the court denied the new-trial motion and declined remedial requests (e.g., continuance, witness recall) that the defense did not expressly make.
- The defendant also claimed prosecutorial impropriety in closing: (1) the prosecutor expressed a personal opinion about guilt/testimony, and (2) the prosecutor appealed to jurors’ emotions by asking them to imagine the witnesses’ perspectives.
- The trial court rejected both Brady-based prejudice and prosecutorial-impropriety claims; the Appellate Court affirmed, finding no suppression under Brady and no improper closing that deprived the defendant of a fair trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Late disclosure of police report/new trial (Brady) | Information was effectively disclosed at trial; no intentional suppression; defense had opportunity to use the substance; no prejudice shown | Late disclosure of Officer Bensey’s report prejudiced cross-examination and trial preparation and warranted a new trial | No Brady violation; report’s substance surfaced at trial; defendant failed to show specific prejudice; denial of new trial affirmed |
| Prosecutor’s closing argument (opinion and emotional appeal) | Comments were permissible argument on cumulative evidence and reasonably tied to facts; no unsworn testimony or improper emotional manipulation | Prosecutor improperly expressed personal opinion of guilt and put jurors in victims’ shoes to inflame passion | No impropriety requiring reversal; comments were factually grounded and within permissible rhetorical latitude |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Thompson, 81 Conn. App. 264 (Conn. App. 2004) (Brady framework; late disclosure standard and prejudice requirement)
- State v. Albino, 312 Conn. 763 (Conn. 2014) (two-step prosecutorial impropriety analysis)
- State v. Long, 293 Conn. 31 (Conn. 2009) (standard for reversal when prosecutorial conduct deprives defendant of fair trial)
- State v. Walker, 214 Conn. 122 (Conn. 1990) (speculative prejudice insufficient to overturn conviction)