State v. Roy D. L., 339 Conn. 820

Background

Victim R (age 10 in 2015) reported to a camp counselor and later underwent a hospital-based forensic interview describing repeated instances in which her father, Roy D. L., used a rag and Vaseline to touch and digitally penetrate her vagina, causing pain and fear.
The 2015 forensic interview occurred at the Children’s Advocacy Center in a hospital; the forensic interviewer (Lindsay Craft) asked about R’s physical and mental well-being and thereafter recommended medical examination and therapy.
The defendant previously had been investigated in 2008 after a report by R (age 3); he signed an agreement then to stop physically cleaning R’s genital area based on medical recommendations.
Charged with multiple sexual offenses, the defendant elected a bench trial; the trial court admitted the full video of the 2015 forensic interview over objection under the medical-treatment hearsay exception and credited R’s testimony.
The prosecutor made a disputed closing remark characterizing a defense witness (Jackson) as having admitted seeing the defendant touch R; the court denied a mistrial, stated it would disregard improper argument, and rendered guilty verdicts (convictions affirmed with one count later vacated on double jeopardy).
The defendant challenged (1) admissibility of the forensic interview, (2) prosecutorial impropriety, (3) sufficiency of the evidence — including intent for fourth‑degree sexual assault, and (4) vagueness of §§ 53a‑70(a)(2) and 53‑21(a)(2).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of forensic interview under medical‑treatment hearsay exception	Interviewer testimony and hospital setting show interview had medical/diagnostic purpose; statements therefore admissible	Interview was for investigatory/ prosecutorial purposes and had virtually no medical purpose; inadmissible hearsay	Admitted: an objective observer could infer R made statements to obtain medical treatment; exception satisfied (Manuel T. framework applied)
Prosecutorial impropriety in closing (mischaracterizing Jackson)	State: prosecutor’s remark was a reasonable inference from evasive testimony and not harmful; even if improper, bench trial judge was presumed to disregard it	Defendant: prosecutor vouched for facts not in evidence and commented on witness credibility, depriving him of a fair trial	No reversal: even if improper, trial judge expressly rejected/ disclaimed reliance on the remark; in bench trials presumption that judge disregarded improper argument is dispositive absent evidence otherwise
Sufficiency of evidence (conduct and intent for 4th‑degree assault)	State: R’s testimony and forensic interview established the touching, digital penetration, and intent (degradation/sexual gratification)	Defendant: contradicted by multiple witnesses and evidence showed hygiene motive not sexual intent; insufficient to convict	Affirmed: court credited R, discredited contrary witnesses; a single credible witness suffices and intent may be inferred from conduct, surrounding circumstances, and ritualistic nature of abuse
Vagueness of §§ 53a‑70(a)(2) and 53‑21(a)(2) as applied	Statutory text plus precedent give fair warning that digital penetration and sexual/indecent touching of a child are prohibited	Defendant claims his conduct was hygienic/innocent and statutes are too vague to give notice	Rejected: statutes and case law (digital penetration = vaginal intercourse; deliberate touching of private parts is proscribed) provide a person of ordinary intelligence adequate notice

Key Cases Cited

State v. Manuel T., 337 Conn. 429 (Conn. 2020) (framework for applying medical‑treatment hearsay exception focusing on declarant’s purpose)
State v. Griswold, 160 Conn. App. 528 (Conn. App. 2015) (forensic interview circumstances may support medical‑treatment inference)
State v. Cruz, 260 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2002) (rationale for admitting statements made for medical diagnosis/treatment)
State v. Albert, 252 Conn. 795 (Conn. 2000) (digital penetration can constitute vaginal intercourse)
State v. Michael H., 291 Conn. 754 (Conn. 2009) (intent for sexual gratification may be inferred from touching intimate parts)
State v. Pickering, 180 Conn. 54 (Conn. 1980) (deliberate touching of child’s private parts violates risk of injury statute)
State v. Bermudez, 274 Conn. 581 (Conn. 2005) (prosecutor may not express personal opinion on witness credibility)
State v. Fauci, 282 Conn. 23 (Conn. 2007) (two‑step test for prosecutorial impropriety)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (Conn. 1987) (limits on closing argument re facts not in evidence)