State v. Michael D., 153 Conn.App. 296

Defendant (stepfather) was tried for sexual assaults on his stepdaughter alleged to have occurred in 2001–2003; convicted of two counts of risk of injury to a child and acquitted of first‑degree sexual assault. Sentence imposed; appeal followed.
In 2004 the victim’s mother found a plastic bag hidden in the defendant’s vehicle containing the victim’s outgrown clothing (including blue silk shorts later testing positive for the defendant’s semen) and two pornographic magazines, including "Barely Legal." She kept the bag until turning it over to police in 2009 after the victim disclosed abuse in 2008.
Police obtained a buccal swab from the defendant; forensic DNA testing on the shorts matched the defendant. Defendant moved to suppress DNA results and to exclude the magazine; both motions were denied.
The state filed a substitute information consolidating multiple earlier counts into three counts, each charging conduct on "diverse dates from 2001–2003;" defendant contended this duplicitous charging risked a non‑unanimous jury verdict.
Trial court admitted the magazine evidence (finding relevance based on commingling with stained clothing and thematic similarity to alleged conduct) and denied suppression (finding no reasonable privacy expectation and noting the mother’s consent in turning the bag over).

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of DNA testing of victim's clothing (motion to suppress)	Mother lawfully surrendered bag; defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy in child’s clothing; testing permissible	Defendant had reasonable expectation of privacy because clothing was hidden in his vehicle and testing would reveal private facts (Joyce)	Denied: defendant failed to show a privacy interest; mother’s possession/consent and Bernier reasoning allowed testing
Admissibility of pornographic magazine (motion in limine)	Magazine found with victim’s stained clothing is probative of sexual interest, motive, intent, corroboration	Magazine irrelevant, impermissible character/propensity evidence, prejudicial	Denied: evidence relevant (connection to clothing and alleged dressing/fantasy conduct); probative value outweighed prejudice
Duplicitous substitute information / unanimity	Charges consolidated but case turned on victim credibility; unanimity instruction given; no particularized challenge	Charging multiple distinct incidents in one count risked non‑unanimous verdict	Rejected under Golding: no reasonable likelihood of juror non‑unanimity given centrality of single credibility question and jury instructions
Standard of review for suppression/evidentiary rulings	N/A	N/A	Court applied established standards: factual findings reviewed for clear error; evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; constitutional claims reviewed under Golding when unpreserved

State v. Joyce, 229 Conn. 10 (Conn. 1994) (warrantless chemical testing of a defendant’s clothing seized under community caretaking implicated privacy; suppression required)
State v. Bernier, 246 Conn. 63 (Conn. 1998) (distinguishing Joyce where property legitimately seized for fire investigation, limiting need for separate warrant for testing)
State v. Burroughs, 288 Conn. 836 (Conn. 2008) (standards of review for suppression motions; factual findings and legal conclusions)
State v. Kalphat, 285 Conn. 367 (Conn. 2008) (standing and reasonable expectation of privacy require subjective and objective showing)
State v. James, 211 Conn. 555 (Conn. 1989) (admission of evidence of defendant’s prior conduct toward complainant relevant to show special attraction to complainant)