State v. Prosper, 160 Conn.App. 61

Background

Victim A (12 in June 2009) visited her grandparents; defendant (her aunt’s husband) lived downstairs and was frequently present. Several encounters occurred in which defendant, sometimes wearing only a towel, rubbed A’s shoulders, touched her breasts, and on one occasion forced vaginal intercourse (with condom) causing bleeding. A later disclosed to relatives and participated in two recorded forensic interviews. A medical exam was normal.
Defendant was charged with: one count of first‑degree sexual assault (Gen. Stat. § 53a‑70(a)(2)) and two counts of risk of injury to a child (Gen. Stat. § 53‑21(a)(2)).
At trial, the state initially failed to introduce direct evidence of defendant’s age; after a motion for judgment of acquittal the court allowed the state to reopen and present birth‑date evidence over defendant’s objection.
The jury convicted on all three counts; defendant appealed asserting (1) insufficient evidence and (2) improper dual role of a medical witness as fact and expert.
The Appellate Court affirmed the convictions, rejecting the sufficiency challenge and declining to review the evidentiary challenge as inadequately briefed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that defendant was >2 years older (element of § 53a‑70(a)(2))	State: circumstantial evidence (marriage, three‑year‑old child, defendant’s appearance at trial) supported inference he was >14 when assault occurred	Prosper: state presented no direct evidence of age in case‑in‑chief; reopening after motion for acquittal was improper	Court: circumstantial evidence sufficed to make prima facie showing; reopening was not manifest abuse of discretion and conviction stands
Sufficiency of evidence that the prohibited sexual conduct occurred	State: A’s testimony (forensic interviews and trial testimony) established penetration, breast and inner‑thigh contact	Prosper: A’s testimony was inconsistent/contradictory and insufficient	Court: credibility and conflicts are jury questions; credited testimony was sufficient to support all convictions
Trial court’s decision to permit state to reopen case after motion for judgment of acquittal	State: reopening allowed because omission was inadvertent and no prejudice to defendant	Prosper: Allen requires reopening to be barred where defendant identified gap in prima facie case	Court: Allen did not control because prima facie case (including circumstantial age evidence) existed; reopening proper under discretion doctrines
Admissibility / witness role: nurse practitioner as fact witness and expert	State: (implicit) Murphy could testify to facts and, where appropriate, as expert	Prosper: court erred and/or plain error in allowing Murphy to testify in both capacities	Court: claim inadequately briefed on appeal; appellate court declines to review

Key Cases Cited

State v. Zoravali, 34 Conn. App. 428 (1994) (trial court has discretion to reopen case to admit omitted material evidence)
State v. Anderson, 209 Conn. 622 (1989) (reopening allowed for inadvertent failure to introduce material evidence if no substantial prejudice)
State v. Allen, 205 Conn. 370 (1987) (reopening after defendant identifies missing prima facie element can be abuse of discretion in certain circumstances)
State v. Calabrese, 279 Conn. 393 (2006) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and jury inferences)
State v. Hollby, 59 Conn. App. 737 (2000) (jury may consider defendant’s courtroom appearance when assessing age inference)
State v. Osoria, 86 Conn. App. 507 (2004) (deference to jury credibility determinations)
State v. Wilder, 128 Conn. App. 750 (2011) (single witness’s credited testimony can support conviction)
State v. Whitaker, 215 Conn. 739 (1990) (same: a single credible witness may suffice)
State v. Claudio C., 125 Conn. App. 588 (2010) (briefing and analysis requirements for appellate review)
State v. Hoover, 54 Conn. App. 773 (1999) (jury’s credibility function reiterated)
State v. Diaz, 94 Conn. App. 582 (2006) (issues inadequately briefed will not be reviewed)