State v. Jessie L. C., 148 Conn. App. 216

Background

Defendant Jessie L. C. (uncle/adoptive father figure) was tried and convicted by a jury of multiple sexual-assault counts (1st, 2nd, 4th degree) and risk of injury to a child based on repeated abuse of the victim N from about age 10 to 16.
Victim N testified to a pattern of frequent abuse at home; she made disclosures in June and August 2009 (to a friend J and at summer camp), which prompted Department of Children and Families involvement and police investigation.
Trial evidence included N’s testimony about numerous incidents, some descriptions of specific events, and medical examination testimony that did not corroborate alleged anal scarring.
At trial the defense sought extensive cross-examination about N’s post-disclosure conduct, alleged lies to caseworkers, foster family and police, and her relationship with J; the court limited questions about events occurring after N’s removal from the defendant’s home.
The state’s amended information charged multiple identical counts (three counts of 2nd-degree sexual assault and two counts of 4th-degree sexual assault) alleging the offenses occurred on “diverse dates” between 2002 and July 2009; the court gave a single instruction for each set of identical counts but told the jury to treat each count separately and emphasized unanimity.
Defendant appealed claiming (1) confrontation clause violation from restricted cross-examination and (2) due process/unanimity problems from a duplicitous amended information. The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether restricting cross-examination about post-removal conduct and alleged lies violated the Sixth Amendment confrontation right	Restrictions were proper because those questions were collateral, remote in time, not probative of the charged offenses, and the defense was allowed meaningful inquiry into motive/bias	Excluding questions about lies to caseworkers, foster family, police and details of relationship with J prevented meaningful impeachment and obscured motive to fabricate	No violation: court reasonably limited collateral/nonprobative inquiry but allowed sufficient cross-examination into motive, bias and relevant untruths; no abuse of discretion
Whether identical counts in amended information were duplicitous and deprived defendant of notice or a unanimous verdict	Information and jury instructions were sufficient; defendant should have sought a bill of particulars; court’s unanimity instructions and post-verdict confirmation cured risk of nonunanimity	Identical counts alleging acts on “diverse dates” deprived him of notice and risked nonunanimous verdicts because jurors could rely on different incidents for each count	Claims fail: defendant waived notice claim by not seeking particulars; unanimity not undermined because court did not sanction nonunanimity, instructed jurors to decide each count separately and require unanimity, and alternative means of sexual assault are not conceptually distinct

Key Cases Cited

State v. Davis, 298 Conn. 1 (Connecticut 2010) (explains confrontation clause limits and trial court discretion over cross-examination)
State v. David N.J., 301 Conn. 122 (Connecticut 2011) (discusses review of evidentiary rulings and confrontation principles)
State v. Marcelino S., 118 Conn. App. 589 (Conn. App. 2009) (addresses duplicity doctrine and Golding review for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Famiglietti, 219 Conn. 605 (Connecticut 1991) (sets multipart test for when an omitted unanimity instruction requires a new trial)
State v. Anderson, 211 Conn. 18 (Connecticut 1989) (holds alternative means of sexual intercourse are not conceptually distinct for unanimity purposes)
State v. Senquiz, 68 Conn. App. 571 (Conn. App. 2002) (addresses absence of specific unanimity charge and related presumptions)
State v. Holness, 289 Conn. 535 (Connecticut 2008) (waiver of claim by failure to seek bill of particulars defeats Golding review)
State v. Bazemore, 107 Conn. App. 441 (Conn. App. 2008) (discusses when long-form/ambiguous informations pose duplicity concerns)