137 Conn. App. 152
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Defendant John O. was convicted after a jury trial of sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child.
- Victim’s mother regularly used the methadone clinic; the defendant drove the family and waited in the car with two children in the back seat.
- A witness, Mark Smith, saw the defendant’s hand reach under the victim and massaging actions toward the vaginal area for about 45 seconds.
- Chelsea Tuttle, a clinic counselor, corroborated seeing the defendant with his hand between the victim’s legs and kissing her, prompting the mother to remove the children.
- Defendant moved for acquittal; trial court denied; sentences totaled 25 years with suspended execution and 35 years’ probation.
- On appeal, the defendant challenges sufficiency of evidence, the in camera review of Department of Children and Families records, and vagueness of § 53-21(a)(2) as applied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual assault fourth degree | Davis viewpoint: evidence shows sexual contact for gratification | Insufficient proof that contact was for his sexual gratification | Evidence sufficient to support conviction |
| In camera review of department records undisclosed exculpatory material | Records lacked exculpatory information | Trial court should have disclosed potentially exculpatory records | Court did not abuse discretion; no exculpatory material found |
| Vagueness of § 53-21(a)(2) as applied | Statute clearly targets deliberate touching of intimate parts; Pickering guidance applies | Action occurred once, in public; may be unconstitutionally vague as applied | Golding claim failed; statute provides fair warning; no vagueness violation |
| Preservation and standards for Golding review | Golding prerequisites satisfied; record adequate; no fundamental due process violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Davis, 283 Conn. 280 (Conn. 2007) (two-step sufficiency and circumstantial evidence standard)
- State v. Na'im B., 113 Conn. App. 790 (Conn. App. 2009) (abuse of discretion standard for in camera review of confidential records)
- State v. Liborio A., 93 Conn. App. 279 (Conn. App. 2006) (credibility not reviewable on appeal; defer to jury on witnesses)
- State v. Pickering, 180 Conn. 54 (Conn. 1979) (morals provision vagueness described before 1995 amendment)
- State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382 (Conn. 2004) (amendment clarified risk of injury standard; fair notice)
- State v. Eric T., 8 Conn. App. 607 (Conn. App. 1986) (touch location supports inference of sexual intent)
- State v. Antonio A., 90 Conn. App. 286 (Conn. App. 2005) (single touching can support risk of injury conviction)