State v. Norman P.
151 A.3d 877
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant (husband) convicted after jury trial of multiple counts including sexual assault in a spousal relationship and assault of an elderly person based on alleged forcible anal and digital/soap penetration of his wife; he testified the encounter was consensual and any soap insertion was accidental.
- Defendant gave a sworn, one‑page written statement to police; the state introduced portions of that statement on cross‑examination to impeach/contrast with his trial testimony.
- Defense sought to admit the defendant’s entire written police statement under Conn. Code Evid. § 1‑5(b) to provide context for portions the state had introduced; the trial court excluded the full statement as self‑serving hearsay.
- Defendant subpoenaed the complainant’s Interval House (domestic/sexual‑assault counseling) records; the organization delivered them to the clerk under seal. Defense requested in camera review and marking for identification; the court refused to mark and declined in camera review, finding the defendant had not made the requisite preliminary showing.
- Appellate court held the trial court erred in excluding the full police statement (misconstruing § 1‑5(b) and Jackson), and erred in refusing to mark the Interval House records and in denying an in camera review after a sufficient threshold showing; reversed and remanded for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of defendant’s full written police statement after state introduced portions | Statement is self‑serving hearsay and inadmissible; prior consistent statements cannot be used to bootstrap testimony | § 1‑5(b) allows the opposing party to introduce other parts of a statement to avoid taking portions out of context; full statement needed for fairness and credibility assessment | Court misinterpreted § 1‑5(b); exclusion was erroneous and not harmless — new trial ordered |
| Whether self‑serving hearsay status bars § 1‑5(b) relief | Self‑serving hearsay remains inadmissible even when offered by declarant who testifies | Hearsay label is irrelevant to § 1‑5(b); rule permits introduction of other parts “whether or not otherwise admissible” when fairness requires | Self‑serving hearsay status is irrelevant to § 1‑5(b); trial court erred in relying on hearsay ground to exclude statement |
| Trial court’s refusal to mark Interval House records for identification | Marking unnecessary if court will not review records; distinguishing Bruno on record type | Right to have exhibits marked for identification to preserve appellate review; Bruno requires marking/sealing where documents are offered/subpoenaed | Refusal to mark was manifest error; records should have been marked and sealed for appellate preservation |
| Entitlement to in camera review of privileged Interval House records | Defendant failed to make threshold showing; request speculative fishing expedition | Defendant made a specific offer of proof showing potential inconsistencies between statements to doctor, police, and Interval House that could impeach complainant | Defendant met threshold; court should have conducted in camera review to determine impeachment value |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796 (1998) (trial court may admit full statement for rehabilitative/contextual purposes where portions have been used to impeach)
- State v. Jackson, 257 Conn. 198 (2001) (§ 1‑5(b) prevents selective admission that distorts context; hearsay label does not alone bar § 1‑5(b) relief)
- State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (1984) (defendant must make a threshold showing to obtain in camera review of privileged records for impeachment)
- State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514 (1996) (trial court has duty to mark and seal subpoenaed records for appellate review even if no in camera inspection occurs)
- State v. Onofrio, 179 Conn. 23 (1979) (broad right to have proffered exhibits marked for identification; refusal is manifest error)