194 Conn.App. 598
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- In August 2015 Michael T. lived with his girlfriend (N) and her five daughters, including J (age 8) and D (age 4). After an argument he forced J and D to place their hands over a lit stove burner; D suffered severe burns requiring hospitalization and fingertip amputations.
- Forensic interviews of J and D (recorded and conducted by a clinician) identified Michael T. as the person who burned them; those recordings were played to the jury with transcripts.
- Michael T. was tried on consolidated informations charging assaults, unlawful restraint, criminal attempt, and multiple counts of risk of injury to a child; the jury convicted on most counts and the court imposed an effective 38-year sentence (execution suspended after 28 years).
- Pretrial and trial evidentiary disputes included a motion in limine to exclude the forensic interview recordings (denied), motions for judgment of acquittal on two risk-of-injury counts (denied), and exclusion of defendant testimony that N had confessed to the burnings (sustained as hearsay).
- On appeal Michael T. challenged: (1) admission of the forensic interviews (medical-diagnosis exception to hearsay; relevance; prejudice/cumulative), (2) sufficiency of evidence on two risk-of-injury counts (whether each child witnessed the other’s burning), and (3) exclusion of testimony about N’s alleged confession (statement against penal interest / Sixth Amendment claim).
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception | Interviews were conducted to assess safety/medical/mental-health needs and interviewer was in chain of care (Griswold rationale) | Forensic interviews only admissible in sexual-assault contexts; Griswold inapplicable here | Defendant’s appellate Griswold-specific challenge was unpreserved; trial court properly admitted interviews under the medical-treatment exception and relied on Griswold reasoning |
| Relevance of the forensic interviews (Conn. Code Evid. §4-1) | Recordings made defendant’s identity and injury extent more probable; low relevance hurdle satisfied | Interviews irrelevant here because constancy-of-accusation rationale applies only to sexual-assault/delayed-disclosure cases | Court rejected defendant’s constancy-based relevancy argument and held interviews were relevant (victims identified defendant and described injuries) |
| Prejudice / cumulative evidence (Conn. Code Evid. §4-3) | Probative value outweighed any prejudice; interviews were not merely cumulative | Recordings were unduly prejudicial and cumulative (multiple presentations of same testimony) | Argument deemed unreviewable on appeal for inadequate briefing; court did not reach merits |
| Sufficiency of evidence on two risk-of-injury counts (whether each child witnessed the other’s burning) | Evidence (testimony, apartment layout photos) allowed a reasonable jury to conclude each child was placed at risk of mental injury by witnessing burning | No direct proof that J witnessed D (or vice versa); thus counts lacking proof | Evidence was sufficient; presence in apartment and conflicting testimony were for jury to weigh; convictions affirmed |
| Exclusion of testimony that N confessed (statement against penal interest / Sixth Amendment) | N testified at trial and was therefore not "unavailable"; proffered statement was hearsay and not admissible under the statement-against-penal-interest exception | N’s alleged confession to defendant was a statement against penal interest and evidence of third-party culpability; exclusion violated right to present a defense | Court correctly excluded the statement: defendant failed to establish N’s unavailability (required for that hearsay exception); exclusion did not violate defendant’s constitutional right |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (discussing medical-diagnosis/treatment hearsay exception and admission of forensic interviews)
- State v. Estrella J.C., 169 Conn. App. 56 (application of medical-treatment hearsay principles in juvenile forensic contexts)
- State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (social-worker statements admissible if interviewer acts within chain of medical care)
- State v. Taupier, 330 Conn. 149 (standards of review for evidentiary rulings)
- State v. James E., 327 Conn. 212 (construction of § 53-21(a)(1) — creation of situations likely to impair child’s health/morals)
- State v. Scruggs, 279 Conn. 698 (recognizing § 53-21 criminalizes creation of situations likely to injure a child’s mental health)