329 Conn. 440
Conn.2018Background
- Defendant Norman P. convicted of multiple sexual-assault and elderly-assault counts after an alleged forcible assault on his wife; sentenced to an effective 36-year term. Appeal followed; Appellate Court reversed for a new trial.
- Key evidentiary disputes: (1) whether the trial court erred by refusing to mark for identification and to conduct an in camera review of privileged Interval House (sexual-assault counseling) records after the defense requested them under § 52-146k; (2) whether the trial court misapplied Conn. Code Evid. § 1-5(b) in refusing to admit the defendant’s entire written statement to police after the state introduced portions of it on cross-examination.
- Trial court denied an in camera inspection twice, telling the defense it would not mark or seal the Interval House records because it had not reviewed them; defense sought marking to preserve appellate review.
- Defense argued inconsistencies among the complainant’s accounts to physician, police, and Interval House made an in camera review likely to yield impeachment material; trial court found the defendant had not made the required showing and refused marking.
- On the prior-statement issue, the state used portions of the defendant’s police statement to impeach him; defense sought admission of the entire statement under § 1-5(b) (rule of completeness / contextual remainder). The trial court denied the full admission; Appellate Court held the trial court erred and that the error was harmful.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court had discretion to refuse to mark privileged Interval House records for identification after defense requested in camera review | State: trial court properly refused in camera review because defendant didn’t make requisite showing; any failure to mark was harmless | Norman: request for in camera review triggered duty to mark and seal the records to preserve appellate review | Held: Trial court lacked discretion to refuse to mark/seal such records; refusal was error that prevented appellate review and required new trial |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by declining to conduct in camera review of Interval House records | State: no reasonable ground shown that records contained impeachment material, so in camera review unnecessary | Norman: inconsistencies between complainant’s accounts provided reasonable ground to require in camera inspection | Held: Defendant made requisite preliminary showing; trial court abused discretion in refusing in camera review |
| Whether trial court misapplied State v. Jackson and § 1-5(b) in denying admission of defendant’s entire police statement | State: trial court correctly limited admission because much of the remainder was self-serving hearsay and not required for context | Norman: entire statement necessary to place admitted portions in context; § 1-5(b) requires remainder when needed for context | Held: Trial court misinterpreted Jackson and § 1-5(b); but only a portion (e.g., reference to a “used bar of soap”)—not the entire statement—was required under § 1-5(b) to avoid taking admitted excerpts out of context |
| Whether error in excluding remainder of statement was harmful | State: Appellate Court erred in finding harm | Norman: exclusion of remainder distorted context and was harmful | Held: Because separate Interval House marking error precluded review of possible harmlessness, defendant entitled to new trial; on § 1-5(b) the court identifies only limited remainder that should be admitted on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514 (1996) (trial court must mark and seal privileged records requested for in camera review to preserve appellate record)
- State v. Esposito, 192 Conn. 166 (1984) (explains standard for in camera inspection when privileged material is sought for impeachment)
- State v. Jackson, 257 Conn. 198 (2001) (interprets Conn. Code Evid. § 1-5(b): remainder of statement must be admitted when necessary to provide context)
- State v. Castonguay, 218 Conn. 486 (1991) (remainder admissible if it alters the context of the admitted portion)
- State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796 (1998) (discusses prior consistent statements and rehabilitation; cited by parties)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (2007) (standards of review: legal interpretation of evidence rules is plenary; evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Duncan v. McTiernan, 151 Conn. 469 (1964) (refusal to mark exhibits may be "manifest error" and deprives appellant of record)