State v. ORAL H., 125 Conn. App. 276

Oral H. was convicted after a jury trial of first-degree sexual assault and 24 counts of third-degree sexual assault against his daughter.
The offenses occurred between February 2002 and June 2003, with at least one instance in a parked car in a public park.
Defendant challenged multiple trial motions on appeal, including dismissals of the third-degree counts and the first-degree count, selective-prosecution claims, and admission of expert testimony without a Porter hearing.
The court had previously stayed a ruling on the constitutionality of § 53a-72a(a)(2) until the Connecticut Supreme Court upheld the statute in State v. John F.M.; the statute was later held constitutional.
The trial court denied the motions; the jury acquitted on kidnapping and the court imposed a total sentence of 25 years with 20 years served and 10 years of probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 53a-72a(a)(2) was unconstitutional at the time of arrest	State argued the statute was valid and could be applied despite prior declarations of unconstitutionality.	Oral contended the statute was unconstitutional at arrest and void ab initio.	No defect; statute valid at arrest, denial affirmed.
Whether amending the information adding the first-degree count violated separation of powers	State maintained amendment was permissible under Practice Book § 36-17 and did not prejudice rights.	Oral argued amendment circumvented judicial probable-cause review and violated separation of powers.	Permissible amendment; no separation-of-powers error.
Whether the third-degree charges were selectively prosecuted	State asserted the defendant’s history and coercive control over the victim justified charging the offenses.	Oral claimed unequal treatment based on age/gender and lack of similarly situated prosecution.	No selective-prosecution violation; charging decision supported by record.
Whether expert testimony was admitted without a Porter hearing	Garnet's testimony about delayed disclosure was non-scientific and not subject to Porter.	Kumho Tire should extend Porter to technical or specialized testimony; trial court erred by not conducting a Porter hearing.	No Porter hearing required; admission proper.

State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622 (2010) (de novo review of motions to dismiss; jurisdictional questions)
State v. John M., 94 Conn. App. 667 (2006) (earlier ruling that § 53a-72a(a)(2) violated equal protection)
State v. John F.M., 285 Conn. 528 (2008) (Supreme Court upheld constitutionality of § 53a-72a(a)(2))
State v. Perez, 82 Conn. App. 100 (2004) (selective-prosecution precedent; prima facie showing)
State v. Delossantos, 211 Conn. 258 (1989) (standard for proving selective prosecution)
State v. Sullivan, 244 Conn. 640 (1998) (evidentiary rulings; Porter standard respected)
State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (Daubert/Porter standard for scientific testimony)
Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (extension of Daubert to technical and specialized testimony)
State v. Vumback, 68 Conn. App. 313 (2002) (distinguished expert testimony not scientific in delayed disclosure context)
State v. John M., 278 Conn. 916 (2006) (Supreme Court certification and final ruling on constitutionality)