State v. Montana, 179 Conn. App. 261

Victim (J) was 12 in January 2012; she and her family lived in one motel room where defendant Travis Montana, a family friend, moved in and began sharing a bed with her.
Over a period ending February 14, 2012, the defendant digitally penetrated the victim, attempted to force oral sex, and forced vaginal intercourse; the victim’s father was asleep/medicated during the incidents.
Victim disclosed the abuse after the defendant moved out; report made to physician, Department of Children and Families, and police.
Defendant was tried by jury on charges of first‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child; convicted and sentenced to 15 years plus 10 years special parole.
On appeal defendant argued (1) the evidence was insufficient (pointing to inconsistencies in victim’s testimony) and (2) the trial court abused its discretion by excluding third‑party culpability evidence about the victim’s father.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to support convictions	State: victim’s detailed testimony alone was sufficient to prove both offenses beyond a reasonable doubt	Montana: inconsistencies in the victim’s statements and apparent implausibility (nobody heard) rendered evidence insufficient	Conviction affirmed; appellate court defers to jury credibility findings and holds victim’s testimony was sufficient
Exclusion of third‑party culpability evidence	State: proffered evidence (post‑2012 misconduct by father, hearsay statements) was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative	Montana: father had motive/opportunity; evidence could support third‑party culpability defense	Trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence failed to directly connect father to 2012 offenses and was properly excluded
Admissibility/relevance of nonhearsay proffer	State: nonhearsay portions did not link father to motel incidents; temporal dissimilarity made them irrelevant	Montana: at minimum created reasonable doubt about identity of perpetrator	Held against defendant; later misconduct in 2015 was factually dissimilar and speculative as to 2012 acts
Jury instruction on third‑party culpability	State: no properly admitted evidence to support such instruction	Montana: requested instruction should have been given	No error; instruction unnecessary because no admissible third‑party evidence was admitted

State v. Tine, 137 Conn. App. 483 (discusses sufficiency review and standard for construing evidence in favor of verdict)
State v. Douglas F., 145 Conn. App. 238 (deference to factfinder on credibility; conflicting evidence does not render evidence insufficient)
State v. Gene C., 140 Conn. App. 241 (victim testimony alone can support sexual assault conviction)
State v. Baker, 50 Conn. App. 268 (standards for admissibility and relevancy of third‑party culpability evidence)
State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (third‑party culpability must do more than show motive or raise bare suspicion)
State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786 (requested jury instruction on third‑party culpability requires support in admitted evidence)
State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (limits on use of character/prior bad acts evidence in third‑party culpability context)
State v. Coyne, 118 Conn. App. 818 (sufficiency review is independent of evidentiary‑ruling claims)