State v. Samuel U., 348 Conn. 304

Background

Defendant Samuel U. was convicted after a bench trial of first‑degree sexual assault and two counts of risk of injury to a child for abuse of victim T occurring 2007–2010 (T ages 7–10).
More than eight months before trial the state filed a § 4‑5(b) notice of intent to present uncharged sexual‑misconduct evidence describing four prior incidents (dates, nature, and docket numbers), including an August 1993 offense against a four‑year‑old (docket provided) but without naming the victim.
At trial the state called S (the defendant’s daughter) as propensity evidence; S testified about sexual abuse in 1993 (genital rubbing). Defense objected on grounds of temporal remoteness and dissimilarity of victims; defense did not contest the adequacy/identity of the notice before trial.
The trial court admitted S’s testimony, relying in part on a recorded interview in which the defendant said he was incarcerated from about 1993–2003, effectively narrowing the non‑incarcerated interval to ~4 years.
The court found the incidents similar (location, conduct, familial relationship, victims’ ages) and ruled S’s testimony relevant and not unduly prejudicial; defendant appealed, arguing (1) inadequate pretrial notice violated due process, and (2) admission of S’s testimony was an abuse of discretion.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument (Plaintiff)	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to give more specific pretrial notice of uncharged misconduct violated due process	No constitutional right to pretrial notice of inculpatory uncharged misconduct; notice is a discovery matter governed by practice rules	Due process requires meaningful pretrial notice and opportunity to respond; the notice here was inadequate	Held for State: No constitutional right to such notice; Golding review fails at prong two; notice governed by practice rules (O’Brien‑Veader)
Whether the trial court erred in treating S as the victim described in the 1993 notice (identity/notice adequacy)	Notice (with docket number and year) was adequate and parties treated the entry as referring to S; defendant made no pretrial objection	Notice did not name S and the notice described more severe acts than S testified to	Held for State: Defendant waived the challenge by not contesting it below; trial court’s inference that the notice referred to S was not clearly erroneous
Whether S’s testimony was too remote (temporal proximity)	Defendant’s incarceration 1993–2003 narrows the effective gap to ~4 years; comparable precedents permit admission	Fourteen‑year gap is too remote; incarceration finding was speculative/ambiguous	Held for State: Trial court’s incarceration finding was supported by the record; measuring non‑incarcerated time (~4 years) made prior misconduct sufficiently proximate under DeJesus
Whether admission of S’s testimony was unduly prejudicial / an abuse of discretion under Conn. Code Evid. § 4‑5(b) (similarity factors)	Parallels in conduct, location, victim relationship and age rendered evidence highly probative; trial to the court and offered option of another judge reduced prejudice	Admission was unduly prejudicial and speculative	Held for State: Court reasonably found second and third DeJesus factors satisfied; probative value outweighed prejudicial effect; no abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. O’Brien‑Veader, 318 Conn. 514 (Conn. 2015) (no constitutional right to pretrial disclosure of inculpatory uncharged misconduct evidence)
State v. DeJesus, 288 Conn. 418 (Conn. 2008) (admissibility of other sexual‑misconduct evidence requires proximate in time, similarity of offense, and similarity of victims)
State v. Snelgrove, 288 Conn. 742 (Conn. 2008) (incarceration during interval between offenses can render otherwise remote prior misconduct admissible)
State v. Acosta, 326 Conn. 405 (Conn. 2017) (declining a bright‑line rule for remoteness; cumulative DeJesus analysis)
State v. George A., 308 Conn. 274 (Conn. 2013) (DeJesus factors and probative value of prior sexual misconduct evidence)
State v. Juan J., 344 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2022) (trial courts have discretion in procedure for admitting uncharged misconduct evidence)