State v. Lester, 153 A.3d 647

Background

Defendant Edward Lester was tried for multiple sexual assaults of his girlfriend’s eight‑year‑old daughter; jury convicted on all counts and trial court imposed a lengthy sentence.
Before trial, the state moved in limine under Connecticut’s rape‑shield statute to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior sexual conduct, including a prior allegation (when she was five) against her father’s then‑wife and the subsequent investigation.
Lester sought to admit the prior allegation and investigatory materials to attack the victim’s credibility and to show an alternative source of the victim’s advanced sexual knowledge.
The trial court held a hearing and granted the state’s motion, finding (1) the defense had not credibly shown the prior allegation was false (required under the rape‑shield statute), (2) the prior event was remote in time and dissimilar to the charged conduct, and (3) admission would risk confusion and a trial‑within‑a‑trial.
On appeal, Lester challenged only the court’s application of the rape‑shield statute (arguing the court improperly made credibility determinations and that the investigation was independently admissible). The state argued multiple independent grounds supported exclusion.
The Connecticut Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as moot because Lester failed to challenge all independent bases the trial court relied on for exclusion, so appellate relief could not remedy the conviction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Lester)	Held
Admissibility of prior allegation under rape‑shield statute	Evidence inadmissible because defense failed to show the prior allegation was false; alternatively exclusion justified by remoteness and risk of confusion	The court improperly resolved falsity/credibility at the hearing rather than submitting to the jury; evidence was critical to credibility	Appeal dismissed as moot; court found independent, unchallenged grounds (remoteness, dissimilarity, confusion) supported exclusion
Admissibility of prior investigation as alternative source of knowledge	Investigation was subject to same exclusionary considerations and irrelevant	Investigation should be admissible separate from rape‑shield constraints to show alternative source of sexual knowledge	Not reviewed on merits—claim not distinctly preserved/raised and alternative bases foreclose relief; appeal moot
Whether appellate review is barred when appellant does not attack all bases for exclusion	Appeals are moot if unchallenged independent grounds would sustain ruling	Argued trial court treated other factors only as part of rape‑shield analysis (thus challenged)	Court held appellant failed to challenge independent grounds; dismissal for mootness appropriate
Whether exclusion violated defendant’s constitutional rights	State: exclusion proper; no constitutional violation shown	Lester: exclusion violated his rights to present a defense	Court did not reach constitutional claim because appeal moot; no review on merits

Key Cases Cited

Putnam v. Kennedy, 279 Conn. 162 (discussing justiciability and mootness principles)
State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 109 (establishing four‑part justiciability test)
Lyon v. Jones, 291 Conn. 384 (holding appeals are moot when appellant fails to challenge all independent grounds supporting trial court’s ruling)
Hechtman v. Savitsky, 62 Conn. App. 654 (noting appellate relief is unavailable where unchallenged adverse findings remain)