164 Conn.App. 390
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Wanto Polynice, an agency employee and job coach, was convicted by a jury of second-degree sexual assault for engaging in penile-vaginal intercourse with a 21-year-old client who suffered cognitive impairments and seizure disorder.
- Victim lived in a group residential facility; defendant knew of her disability and agency policy forbidding staff-client sexual contact.
- Forensic and medical evidence (injuries, presence of sperm) supported the state’s case; defendant was acquitted of first-degree sexual assault but sentenced after conviction of second-degree.
- Defense sought to introduce (a) evidence of two prior incidents the victim reported to her mother while hospitalized (alleged prior false complaints of inappropriate touching) and (b) photographs of the victim’s bedroom showing toys, coloring books, crayons, etc., to undermine the claim that she was unable to consent.
- Trial court excluded the Silver Hill incidents on grounds they were not shown to be false or sexual and were therefore not admissible to impeach credibility; the court admitted the bedroom photographs as probative of the victim’s cognitive/developmental level and not unduly prejudicial.
- On appeal, defendant argued ineffective assistance of counsel, erroneous exclusion of the Silver Hill evidence (relevant to consent), and erroneous admission of the bedroom photographs; the appellate court affirmed and declined to address ineffectiveness on direct appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Polynice) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Ineffective assistance of counsel | N/A (urged that claim is not properly raised on direct appeal) | Trial counsel conceded guilt by using the term “victim” and failed to object to jury instruction inviting a search for “truth” rather than requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt; these errors prejudiced defense. | Court declined to reach merits: ineffective assistance claims generally must be pursued in habeas/new-trial proceedings; direct-appeal review inappropriate absent narrow exceptions. |
| 2. Exclusion of Silver Hill testimony (prior complaints) | Evidence was not shown to be false or sexual; primarily concerned victim’s mother’s credibility/decision-making; inadmissible for impeachment. | Proffered incidents showed prior false allegations or at least prior nonsexual touching relevant to victim’s ability to accept/reject touching and therefore relevant to consent. | Court refused to review on that theory: defendant offered a different theory on appeal than was litigated at trial (trial focused on prior false sexual accusations); appellate review limited to theories raised below. |
| 3. Admission of bedroom photographs (toys, crayons, etc.) | Photographs of the room and items were relevant to victim’s developmental level and thus probative of ability to consent; not unduly prejudicial. | Photographs were minimally probative and inflammatory—evoked sympathy and childlike impressions that unfairly prejudiced defendant. | Court affirmed admission: photographs were probative (even slightly) of cognitive/developmental level relevant to consent and their probative value was not substantially outweighed by undue prejudice. |
| 4. Claim of constitutional confrontation right re: excluded evidence | State argued exclusion was proper under evidentiary rules and impeachment standards; no preserved constitutional claim. | Defendant suggested exclusion violated confrontation/defense rights by preventing questioning about prior incidents and mother’s reactions. | Court treated any such constitutional argument as inadequately briefed/unpreserved and declined to address it substantively. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Taft, 306 Conn. 749, 51 A.3d 988 (2012) (direct-appeal limits on ineffective-assistance claims explained)
- State v. Leecan, 198 Conn. 517, 504 A.2d 480 (1986) (ineffective-assistance claims typically pursued in habeas or new-trial petitions)
- State v. Gray, 63 Conn. App. 151, 772 A.2d 747 (2001) (exception for raising ineffective-assistance claims on direct appeal where guilty plea involved)
- State v. Lameirao, 135 Conn. App. 302, 42 A.3d 414 (2012) (discussion of ineffective-assistance and procedural posture)
- State v. Gebhardt, 83 Conn. App. 772, 851 A.2d 391 (2004) (appellate review limited to theories of admissibility presented to trial court)
- DiSorbo v. Grand Assocs. One Ltd. P’ship, 8 Conn. App. 203, 512 A.2d 940 (1986) (error not shown where appellate theory differs from trial theory)
- Fischel v. TKPK, Ltd., 34 Conn. App. 22, 640 A.2d 125 (1994) (appellate court will not decide correctness of unmade trial rulings)
- State v. Bullock, 155 Conn. App. 1, 107 A.3d 503 (2015) (standards for relevance and unfair prejudice under Connecticut evidence law)