State v. James H., 150 Conn.App. 847

Background

Defendant James H. was convicted after jury trial of multiple sexual assault and risk of injury counts based on prolonged sexual abuse of two daughters (C and J) beginning when they were about five and four, continuing for ~9 years; C later tested positive for chlamydia.
Defendant represented himself at trial (with standby counsel) and denied the allegations; victims testified in detail and C testified she had not had intercourse with anyone other than the defendant.
At trial the court admitted uncharged-misconduct evidence and several text messages; court also reviewed Department of Children and Families records in camera and produced limited redacted portions.
Post-conviction the defendant raised multiple appellate claims: inadequate inquiry into possible juror misconduct; erroneous application of the rape‑shield statute (§ 54‑86f) by denying an evidentiary hearing to probe C’s sexual history; exclusion of cross‑examination about DCF records; prejudicial judicial comments characterizing crimes as "compulsive sexual criminal behavior"; and erroneous application of the spousal‑testimony privilege that allowed admission of texts to his wife.
Appellate court affirmed: (1) trial court satisfied preliminary juror‑misconduct inquiry and defendant showed no prejudice; (2) defendant failed to meet § 54‑86f preliminary burden and no evidentiary hearing was required; (3) exclusion of additional cross‑examination was within discretion as cumulative; (4) jury instructions about uncharged misconduct did not deprive defendant of due process; (5) even assuming error admitting spousal texts, admission was harmless because similar texts to the daughter were admitted.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (James H.)	Held
Juror misconduct inquiry adequacy	Court conducted on‑the‑record inquiry and gave parties chance to respond	Court failed to conduct sufficient factual inquiry into juror comments and record is inadequate	Affirmed — court’s limited inquiry (witness testimony) was reasonable; defendant showed no prejudice
Rape‑shield hearing under § 54‑86f	Evidence of C’s chlamydia not shown to link to others; defendant did not meet preliminary showing	Defendant had sufficient offer of proof (C had chlamydia; defendant not diagnosed) to require hearing	Affirmed — defendant lacked good‑faith basis (he had not been tested; evidence speculative); no hearing required
Use of DCF records / recall of victims	Court reviewed records in camera, produced limited redactions; further questioning would be cumulative	Defendant should have been allowed to recall victims to impeach with prior DENIALS in DCF records	Affirmed — trial court reasonably excluded further recall as cumulative and within discretion
Admission of spousal text messages (marital privilege)	Texts not privileged under child‑abuse policy exception; even if error, texts were cumulative of other inculpatory messages	Court improperly applied spousal privilege and admitted privileged communications, causing prejudice	Affirmed — any privilege error was harmless because similar texts to the daughter were admitted and not privileged

Key Cases Cited

State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 (trial court must conduct preliminary on‑record juror‑misconduct inquiry)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Alston, 272 Conn. 432 (factors guiding scope of juror‑misconduct inquiry)
State v. Owens, 100 Conn. App. 619 (trial court’s credibility evaluations in juror‑misconduct context)
State v. Bozelko, 119 Conn. App. 483 (burden on defendant to prove prejudice from juror misconduct)
State v. Crespo, 303 Conn. 589 (two‑step § 54‑86f procedure and defendant’s preliminary burden)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (limited exception for admitting uncharged sexual misconduct to show propensity in sexual‑crime cases)
State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 (policies underlying rape‑shield statute)
State v. Martinez, 295 Conn. 758 (offer of proof must be specific, not speculative)
State v. Ciullo, 140 Conn. App. 393 (standard for reviewing jury instructions and impartial jury claim)