State v. Rivera
2013 Conn. App. LEXIS 435
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Rivera was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of sexual assault in the second degree and three counts of risk of injury to a child.
- Defendant challenged the court’s instruction on constancy of accusation evidence as violating due process.
- The court admitted constancy of accusation testimony through the victim’s father to corroborate the victim’s out-of-court statements, and instructed the jury on its limited use.
- The jury heard a timeline of assaults in 2006, 2007, and a final incident in 2008, with the victim initially not reporting the events.
- Defendant did not submit a specific jury instruction on the issue nor object to the instructions at trial.
- The appellate court declined to overrule prior panel precedent and affirmed the judgment, applying Golding review only if appropriate and finding no constitutional error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the constancy of accusation instruction violated due process | Rivera asserts instruction improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility | Rivera contends the instruction invites reliance on valueless evidence | No constitutional error; instruction compliant with Antwon W. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Antwon W., 118 Conn. App. 199 (2009) (constancy of accusation not constitutional error)
- State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (1996) (corroboration limitations on out-of-court statements)
- State v. LaBrec, 270 Conn. 548 (2004) (instructional error often not constitutional in nature)
- Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 125 Conn. App. 57 (2010) (panel overruling requires en banc review)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims)