State v. Juan J., 344 Conn. 1

Background

Defendant (father) was convicted of first‑degree sexual assault, attempted first‑degree sexual assault, and two counts of risk of injury to a child based on two charged incidents (Jan. 5, 2015 and Dec. 24, 2015) involving his daughter (P).
Before trial, the state gave notice it would present evidence of numerous additional uncharged instances of sexual touching of P spanning 2014–2016; the state expressly sought to admit that evidence under Conn. Code Evid. § 4‑5(c) (intent/common scheme/completing the story), and declined to offer it as propensity evidence under § 4‑5(b).
The trial court admitted P’s testimony about many additional incidents and admitted two videoed forensic interviews (hearsay exception for medical diagnosis/treatment). The court gave limiting instructions that the other‑acts evidence was for intent/absence of mistake, and repeatedly told jurors not to use it as propensity evidence; no separate limiting instruction was given immediately before/after the videos.
The prosecutor’s closing emphasized a broader timeline and repetitive abuse beyond the two charged incidents. Defense maintained, consistently, a denial defense—that the alleged conduct never occurred (not that it was accidental).
The Connecticut Supreme Court held the admission of the uncharged misconduct under § 4‑5(c) was an abuse of discretion because intent was not genuinely at issue in a general intent case where the defense was denial of occurrence; the error was harmful and required a new trial.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument (Plaintiff)	Defendant's Argument	Held
1) Were the uncharged‑misconduct acts admissible under § 4‑5(c) to prove intent/absence of mistake?	Evidence shows a pattern and sexual interest in the victim and therefore is relevant to intent/common scheme.	Defense argued he denied the acts entirely, so intent/mistake were not in dispute and prior acts were irrelevant and prejudicial.	The court held admission was an abuse of discretion: because defendant’s theory was denial of occurrence in a general‑intent case, intent/absence of mistake was not genuinely at issue and the uncharged acts were irrelevant.
2) May this court affirm on the unpreserved alternative ground that the evidence would have been admissible as propensity under § 4‑5(b)?	State asked court to affirm on that alternative ground (propensity admissibility).	Defense relied on the record that the state declined to offer propensity and trial court never exercised discretion on that ground.	Court declined to consider the unpreserved alternative: the state did not seek admission as propensity at trial, so appellate court would be usurping trial court discretion.
3) Was admission of the two forensic interview videos (without a contemporaneous limiting instruction) separately reviewable or preserved?	State argued defendant did not separately object to video content as uncharged misconduct.	Defense contended pretrial motion in limine and earlier ruling preserved objection to any evidence of uncharged misconduct, including the videos.	Court treated the claim as preserved by the pretrial motion and adverse ruling; but the judgment was reversed on the broader uncharged‑misconduct ground so the court did not need to separately resolve other evidentiary claims.
4) If erroneous, was the admission harmful such that reversal or new trial is required?	State argued error was harmless in light of all evidence.	Defense argued the state’s case relied almost entirely on P’s testimony and the uncharged acts materially and prejudicially expanded the alleged conduct and timeline.	Court held the error was harmful: absence of corroboration, the shocking frequency/severity of uncharged allegations, and prosecutor’s closing made it likely the verdict was substantially swayed; reversed and remanded for new trial.

Key Cases Cited

State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2008) (established liberal propensity exception for uncharged sexual misconduct)
State v. Meehan, 260 Conn. 372 (Conn. 2002) (general rule excluding prior misconduct and recognized exceptions for intent, motive, common scheme)
State v. Mark T., 339 Conn. 225 (Conn. 2021) (standards for reviewing evidentiary rulings and harmlessness analysis)
State v. Ellis, 270 Conn. 337 (Conn. 2004) (erroneous admission of other misconduct can be harmful when it inflames jury and is dissimilar/severe)
State v. Fernando V., 331 Conn. 201 (Conn. 2019) (limitations on considering unpreserved alternative grounds on appeal)
State v. Beavers, 290 Conn. 386 (Conn. 2009) (absence‑of‑mistake/intent exception to exclusion of prior misconduct)