162 Conn.App. 569
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Jorge Carrillo Palencia (late 20s) met a 14‑year‑old family friend at a party on Nov. 10–11, 2012; he transported her by taxi to a Norwalk hotel and placed a "do not disturb" sign on the door. The room had one bed.
- Over the next 48 hours the defendant and the victim traveled to a mall (he bought clothing and underwear for her) and to a second hotel, spending nights alone together; surveillance photos showed them with arms around each other.
- Police received a missing‑person report; the defendant did not respond to police requests to return the victim. The victim later returned home and officers observed a mark on her chest.
- Forensics of the defendant’s surrendered cell phone revealed 33 photographs of the victim in various states of undress; the trial court granted a judgment of acquittal on the separate child‑pornography count.
- After a court trial the defendant was convicted of one count of risk of injury to a child (§ 53‑21(a)(1)), sentenced to five years (execution suspended after 14 months) and probation; he appealed as to evidentiary sufficiency and the trial court’s dismissal of his postsentencing motion to open.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for conviction under § 53‑21(a)(1) (situation prong) | Evidence showed defendant transported and sequestered a 14‑year‑old out‑of‑town, spent nights alone in hotel rooms, ignored police and family, and caused risk to the child’s health (mental and physical) | No evidence of sexual intercourse or actual injury; evidence insufficient to prove impairment of health or morals | Court: Evidence sufficient. Viewing evidence in plaintiff's favor, defendant placed child in situation likely to injure her health (including mental health) and therefore guilty under the situation prong. |
| Reversal of conviction because court acquitted child‑pornography count | N/A (court acquitted on that count) | Argues lack of sexual contact is dispositive of § 53‑21 liability | Court: Lack of proof of sexual intercourse does not negate situation‑prong liability; conviction may stand without sexual intercourse being shown. |
| Motion to open judgment (filed > two weeks after sentencing) — jurisdiction to act | Trial court lacked jurisdiction after defendant was committed and began serving sentence; therefore it properly dismissed the motion | Motion to open should have been heard; requested acquittal, dismissal, or new trial | Court: Dismissal proper. Once sentence begins, trial court loses common‑law jurisdiction absent statutory or constitutional authorization; motion was untimely and no express authorization was identified. |
| Miscellaneous discretionary claims (striking victim’s testimony, denial to reopen evidence, judge disqualification, sentencing) | N/A | Asserts these rulings were improper | Court: No abuse of discretion; these claims lack merit and do not alter outcome. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Allan, 311 Conn. 1 (discusses standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Stephen J. R., 309 Conn. 586 (explains appellate sufficiency inquiry focusing on whether evidence supports guilty verdict)
- State v. Payne, 240 Conn. 766 (statutory purpose of § 53‑21 to protect children’s physical and psychological well‑being)
- State v. Scruggs, 279 Conn. 698 (health in § 53‑21 includes mental as well as physical health)
- State v. Gewily, 280 Conn. 660 (situation prong does not require actual injury; relocation and deprivation of parental contact can violate § 53‑21)
- State v. Ramos, 306 Conn. 125 (trial court loses jurisdiction to modify sentence once defendant begins serving the sentence)