State v. Joseph B., 187 Conn. App. 106

Defendant Joseph B., grandfather, lived at multiple addresses; victim A (his granddaughter) alleged repeated sexual assaults from ~2010–2014, including penile‑vaginal and penile‑anal penetration. Jury convicted on one count first‑degree sexual assault, one count third‑degree sexual assault, and four risk‑of‑injury counts; other counts were acquitted.
Forensic interview (Dec. 5, 2014) and medical exams were conducted; A reported specific occasions (e.g., summer between 3rd–4th grade, second Sunday of Nov. 2014).
Pediatric exam at Yale Child Sexual Abuse Clinic found A positive for trichomonas vaginalis; medical records indicated A was not sexually active otherwise.
State filed a substitute information charging offenses in multi‑year ranges and across residences; defendant moved for a bill of particulars to narrow dates/instances; trial court denied the motion.
Defense objected to admission of (1) evidence of A’s trichomonas diagnosis and (2) text messages from defendant to A’s mother disclosed at start of trial; trial court admitted both (with limiting instruction on diagnosis) and denied motion to preclude texts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Joseph B.)	Held
Denial of motion for bill of particulars	Substitute information and state file (forensic interview, reports) provided sufficient notice; no prejudice	Info was overbroad/vague (multi‑year ranges); deprived him of ability to prepare defenses (alibi)	Denial not reversible: defendant had forensic interview, victim testified to specific instances, defendant failed to show how defense would differ or that he was prejudiced
Admissibility of trichomonas diagnosis	Diagnosis is relevant to whether child had sexual contact; probative and consistent with victim testimony; limiting instruction cures prejudice	Irrelevant absent linkage to defendant; unfairly prejudicial (jury may assume defendant infected child)	Admission proper: probative of sexual contact; limiting instruction given; not unduly prejudicial
Admission of text messages disclosed on first day of trial	Prosecutor timely disclosed upon learning of them; messages relevant to state’s case; short delay remedied by brief continuance	Disclosure was untimely; reports in file should have put prosecutor on notice earlier; sanction/preclusion warranted	Admission proper: prosecutor complied with discovery by timely disclosure; defendant conceded he sent texts and had opportunity to explain; no sanction required

State v. McDougal, 241 Conn. 502 (Conn. 1997) (denial of bill of particulars reviewed for prejudice and abuse of discretion)
State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359 (Conn. 1989) (extrinsic materials like police reports can supply particularity)
State v. Vumback, 263 Conn. 215 (Conn. 2003) (multi‑year informations; denial of bill of particulars not prejudicial where defendant had access to reports and did not show how defense would differ)
State v. Anwar S., 141 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 2013) (diagnosis of STI in child is probative of sexual contact and admissible with limiting instruction)
State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382 (Conn. 2004) (analysis of unfair prejudice in excluding evidence)