168 Conn. App. 419
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Robert H. was tried by jury and acquitted of two counts of first‑degree sexual assault and one count of § 53-21(a)(2) (contact with intimate parts); convicted of two counts of risk of injury to a child under § 53-21(a)(1).
- Each § 53-21(a)(1) count alleged merely that defendant “did an act likely to impair the health or morals” of a child; charging papers and the judge’s charge did not specify the acts.
- Prosecutor’s summation made clear the state relied on two separate acts of masturbation in front of the child victim as the basis for the two § 53-21(a)(1) counts.
- The victim testified about one occasion of the defendant masturbating in her presence; her testimony was not a clear, independent account of a second such incident.
- The only evidence of the asserted second incident was the defendant’s extrajudicial confession given after a four‑hour interrogation with deceptive police tactics and no attorney present.
- Justice Flynn (dissent) concluded the confession lacked independent corroboration and therefore was insufficient to support conviction of a second § 53-21(a)(1) count; he would reverse that conviction and order acquittal as to the second count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to convict on two separate § 53-21(a)(1) counts | State: extrajudicial confession plus portions corroborated by victim’s testimony suffice to support two convictions | Robert H.: only one incident was independently corroborated by victim; second conviction rests solely on uncorroborated confession | Majority: found sufficient corroboration (not summarized here); dissent: insufficient — would reverse second conviction |
| Whether a conviction may rest solely on an uncorroborated extrajudicial confession | State: confession admissible and, when corroborated in parts, can support convictions | Robert H.: confession alone cannot prove occurrence of a second distinct act absent independent corroboration | Dissent: confession alone insufficient to prove separate criminal act beyond reasonable doubt |
| Reviewability of sufficiency challenge when confession admission was not objected to at trial | State: implied that failure to object limits review | Robert H.: challenge to sufficiency preserved by motion for acquittal and reviewable under Jackson v. Virginia/Adams | Dissent: sufficiency review is permissible despite no contemporaneous objection; motion for acquittal preserves claim |
| Role of corpus delicti / corroboration requirement for confessions in crimes involving injury or loss | State: corroboration need not be extensive when other testimony supports key details | Robert H.: corpus delicti and corroboration doctrines require independent evidence of the charged act(s) to trust confession | Dissent: corpus delicti is a hybrid evidentiary/constitutional safeguard requiring independent corroboration to satisfy due process |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Leniart, 166 Conn. App. 142 (Conn. App. 2016) (discussed corpus delicti, sufficiency of independent evidence to corroborate confession)
- State v. Hafford, 252 Conn. 274 (Conn. 2000) (noting trustworthiness of confession to crime causing injury or loss often requires evidence of that injury or loss)
- State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270 (Conn. 1993) (applies Jackson v. Virginia standard; insufficiency claims are constitutionally reviewable)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (governing standard for appellate review of sufficiency of evidence — whether any rational trier of fact could find guilt beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Arnold, 201 Conn. 276 (Conn. 1986) (explains purpose of requiring corroboration for confessions: prevent convictions for nonexistent crimes)
- State v. Jarzbek, 210 Conn. 396 (Conn. 1989) (rules regarding child testimony procedures)