State v. McLaughlin
135 Conn. App. 193
Conn. App. Ct.2012Background
- Victim was sexually abused by her uncle, the defendant, between 1999 and 2002 when she was 7–10.
- In 2006, the victim’s father discovered profane, sexual voicemail messages and, after discussing them with the victim, she disclosed abuse.
- Therapist Barbara Hennessy and then therapist Elizabeth Jorgensen treated the victim; Jorgensen could not identify a motive to fabricate and later notes disclosed new allegations.
- In May 2007, the victim disclosed additional abuse; police and the department interviewed the victim again.
- The defendant was charged with multiple counts, including sexual assault in the first degree and two sets of risk-of-injury-to-a-child counts; after a trial, he was convicted on all counts and sentenced to a term with extensive imprisonment and probation.
- On appeal, the defendant argues the court erred in not admitting Hennessy’s testimony about the parents’ initial doubts about credibility, claiming it was admissible to rebut credibility and as medical-diagnosis-based hearsay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the defendant waived appellate review by abandoning the proffer of Hennessy’s testimony | McLaughlin argues not admitting Hennessy’s testimony deprived jury of credibility context | The defense abandoned that specific offer of proof at trial | Waived; no Golding review available |
| Whether the court’s handling of Hennessy’s testimony requires reversal on admissibility grounds | Hennessy’s testimony should be admissible as medical diagnosis/treatment or rebuttal | Testimony was hearsay or not properly admissible under the offered theory | Not reviewable on appeal due to waiver; issue not preserved for ruling on admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Holness, 289 Conn. 535 (Conn. 2008) (waiver of claims precludes appellate review to avoid ambush of trial court)
- State v. Hudson, 122 Conn.App. 804 (Ct. App. 2010) (waiver doctrine; appellate review limited when trial issues are not preserved)
- State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 (Conn. 2009) (Golding review not available for waived constitutional claims)
- Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd., 34 Conn.App. 22 (Ct. App. 1994) (cannot pass on propriety of ruling not actually made; waiver forecloses review)
- Golding v. State, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for constitutional claims not preserved or waived)