143 Conn. App. 596
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- The defendant, Richard S., was convicted after a jury trial of sexual assault in the second degree under § 53a-71(a)(4) and sexual assault in the third degree under § 53a-72a(a)(2).
- The victim, A, was 16; she moved from Florida to Connecticut to live with the defendant, her biological father, who funded travel and placed her in his home.
- A stayed with the defendant for about a month; the defendant provided food, shelter, transportation, and established a parent-child relationship.
- Two early incidents involved the defendant kissing A on the neck; later, after drinking, A was sexually assaulted by the defendant in the bathroom.
- DNA testing linked the defendant to the assault, confirming he was A’s biological father; A’s mother took her back to Florida shortly after.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports subsection 53a-71(a)(4) (general supervision) | State asserts the defendant assumed responsibility through travel, shelter, and care. | Richard S. contends lack of sustained guardianship; A was estranged and independent. | There was sufficient evidence the defendant was generally responsible for A’s welfare. |
| Whether the trial court properly precluded the disputed statements | State argues redactions were proper under § 4-5(c) to avoid irrelevant hearsay. | Craves admission to challenge guardian status via motives in A’s move to Connecticut. | Court did not abuse discretion; redaction proper and no basis shown to admit the challenged portions. |
| Whether the court properly precluded other defense-relevant evidence | Evidence on how A supported herself or intention to return would prove lack of guardian role. | Such evidence would show A was not under the defendant’s supervision. | Court did not abuse discretion; those inquiries did not meaningfully affect guardian status. |
| Whether the May 21 and May 22 statements were admissible (custody and voluntariness under Miranda) | Statements were voluntary and freely given; defendant was not in custody. | Interrogation atmosphere and prior intoxication could render statements involuntary. | Court properly denied suppression; statements were voluntary and not custodial. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Burney, 189 Conn. 321 (1983) (ambiguous terms; guardian-like responsibilities require substantial control over welfare)
- State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244 (1989) (biological parents can be guardians; must be responsible for welfare)
- State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731 (1995) (relationship and testimony examined to establish guardian status)
- State v. Crumpton, 202 Conn. 224 (1987) (presumed trial court considered proper factors when ruling on admissibility)
- State v. Abreu, 106 Conn. App. 278 (2008) (evidentiary rulings; defendant’s right to present defense)
- State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328 (2010) (practice of articulation where basis of ruling not stated)
- State v. Alberto M., 120 Conn. App. 104 (2010) (circumstantial evidence and standard of review for sufficiency)
- State v. Mucha, 137 Conn. App. 173 (2012) (Miranda custody determinations explained)
- State v. Bridges, 125 Conn. App. 72 (2010) (cooperation and freedom to leave as custody factors)