State v. Roberto Q., 155 A.3d 756

Defendant Roberto Q. was convicted by a jury of sexual assault (2nd, 3rd, 4th degrees) and risk of injury to a child for assaults on his niece (victim) when she was 12–14; effective sentence: 20 years, suspended after 10, plus probation.
Victim’s journal in April 2011 led to disclosure in June 2011; family meeting occurred and police were notified shortly thereafter.
Trial included testimony from the victim and her sister C.A.; C.A. testified to earlier uncharged incidents in Puerto Rico that were not disclosed pretrial; the court sua sponte instructed the jury to disregard those Puerto Rico incidents.
Two constancy-of-accusation witnesses (victim’s mother and neighbor Joshua Roman) testified that the victim (and C.A.) made out-of-court complaints about the defendant; the court gave limiting instructions on use of that testimony.
Defendant objected to the court’s constancy-charge language (particularly use of “corroborate”) and moved for a mistrial based on the undisclosed Puerto Rico testimony; the court denied the mistrial and the defendant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether jury instruction on constancy-of-accusation evidence improperly permitted corroboration as substantive proof	State: instruction correctly limited constancy evidence to fact/timing/identity and to assess credibility; not substantive proof	Defendant: instruction (esp. use of "corroborate") could be read as allowing constancy evidence as substantive proof, misleading jurors	Affirmed: instruction proper; not reasonably probable jury was misled (case follows State v. Daniel W. E.)
Whether denial of mistrial was error after undisclosed prior-misconduct testimony by C.A.	State: court promptly gave curative instruction and defendant did not object contemporaneously; curative measures sufficient	Defendant: testimony about uncharged Puerto Rico incidents was highly prejudicial and required mistrial despite curative instruction	Affirmed: trial court acted within discretion; curative instruction and circumstances obviated need for mistrial

State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (court limited out-of-court complaint testimony to fact/timing/identity; admissible only to corroborate victim’s testimony, not substantive proof)
State v. Daniel W. E., 322 Conn. 593 (affirmed that similar constancy instruction did not mislead jury and distinguishes corroboration from substantive proof)
State v. McIntyre, 250 Conn. 526 (discusses defendant’s burden to show stricken testimony so prejudicial jurors could not follow curative instruction)
State v. Anderson, 255 Conn. 425 (trial court has broad discretion to deny mistrial; reversal only for abuse of discretion)