191 Conn.App. 553
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Juan V. was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of risk of injury to a child based on allegations that he sexually abused his adopted daughter from about age 10 to 12.
- The victim gave a videotaped forensic interview to a child-abuse multidisciplinary team and later testified in court; portions of both were inconsistent.
- The forensic interview video and its transcript were admitted as full exhibits with defense counsel’s agreement and played for the jury during trial.
- During deliberations the jury asked to hear the victim’s testimony; the court replayed her in-court testimony in the courtroom and informed the jury the video exhibit was available to view in the jury room. Defense counsel had previously told jurors they would have the video during deliberations.
- Defendant moved for disclosure of the victim’s school records; the trial court reviewed them in camera and denied disclosure. The defendant appealed, raising three unpreserved claims: (1) improper submission of the forensic interview video to the jury room; (2) improper inferences jury instruction that diluted the State’s burden; and (3) erroneous denial of access to school records.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court erred by allowing the jury unfettered access in the jury room to the videotaped forensic interview admitted as a full exhibit | Exhibits admitted into evidence must be submitted to the jury under Practice Book §42-23; trial court has discretion over manner of submission and Jones favors jury-room review when feasible | Unsupervised access risked giving the video undue weight; Gould and out-of-state precedent require supervised/open-court playback for testimonial recordings | No error. Submission complied with Practice Book §42-23; video was an exhibit (not a deposition/testimonial equivalent) and Jones supports jury-room review when feasible. Plain error not shown |
| Whether the inferences instruction diluted the State’s burden of proof (improper two-inference instruction) | The instruction was a correct statement of law, confined to individual pieces of evidence, and followed reasonable-doubt instructions | Instruction permitted jurors to choose an interpretation consistent with guilt when another interpretation consistent with innocence existed, diluting reasonable doubt | Waived by counsel at charging conference; alternatively, not plain error — the full charge made the burden clear and the instruction did not compel guilt/instruction as a two-inference charge |
| Whether the trial court abused discretion by denying disclosure of victim’s school records | Court conducted in camera review; records did not disclose material probative of credibility or exculpatory information | School records could bear on credibility (behavior/attendance) and thus should be disclosed under Esposito | No abuse of discretion. Appellate in camera review confirmed records lacked probative/exculpatory material |
| Whether this court should invoke supervisory powers to change practice for jury review of forensic interviews | Existing rules and precedent provide adequate guidance; no pervasive systemic problem shown | Court should require supervised/open-court review of forensic interviews to protect fairness | Declined. No showing of pervasive issue or that current practice is offensive to administration of justice |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Jones, 314 Conn. 410 (Conn. 2014) (Practice Book §42-23 requires submission of exhibits to jury but trial court controls manner; preference for jury-room review when feasible)
- State v. Gould, 241 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1997) (playback of videotaped deposition/testimonial evidence during deliberations should occur in open court under supervision)
- State v. Griffin, 253 Conn. 195 (Conn. 2000) (two-inference jury instruction addressed; supervision discouraged its use and suggested alternatives)
- State v. Stanley, 223 Conn. 674 (Conn. 1992) (supports formulation of permissible inferences language cited by trial court)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (waiver of constitutional claims where defendant had meaningful opportunity to review and accept jury instructions)