State v. Shaw, 312 Conn. 85

Background

In January 2006, victim A, age 11, lived with her mother B and siblings in New Haven, with the defendant Shaw in the same residence.
Around 1:20 a.m. B returned to the apartment, found the defendant in her bedroom with A, and alerted police after witnessing the scene.
A was examined at Yale-New Haven Hospital with the defendant alleged to have assaulted her; a sexual assault kit was used.
Shaw was charged with first-degree sexual assault ( § 53a-70 (a)(2)) and risk of injury to a child ( § 53-21 (a)(2)); a jury convicted him on both counts.
Shaw sought to admit prior sexual conduct under the rape shield statute ( § 54-86f ) to propose an alternative source of injuries and to challenge A’s credibility, which the trial court initially denied.
The appellate court reversed, holding the rape shield evidence should have been admitted for consideration and that the trial court’s exclusion potentially affected the outcome, remanding for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly excluded prior sexual conduct evidence under 54-86f.	Shaw argues the evidence was relevant to show alternative source/credibility/motive and was admissible under 54-86f.	Shaw contends the evidence fulfills rape shield exceptions and constitutional rights require its admission.	Court erred; evidence admissible for defense; remand for new trial.
Whether the rape shield ruling violated Shaw's confrontation and due process rights.	The exclusion hampered Shaw’s ability to present a defense and confront witnesses.	The state’s interests in shielding the victim justify exclusion unless exceptions apply.	Rape shield exclusion implicated constitutional rights; reversal on this ground.
Whether the spontaneous utterance admission and related hearsay rulings were proper.	The court’s handling of spontaneous utterance evidence affected Shaw’s defense.	Not clearly resolved on appeal; issues may be reconsidered at retrial.	Not reviewable on retrial; remand for new trial.
Whether admitting the emergency room physician as an expert was properly justified.	Cicero’s testimony as expert was crucial to the medical findings supporting the charges.	Defense objected to basis/foundation for expert status.	Not reviewable on retrial; issues may be revisited later.
Whether the court should have given a jury instruction on credibility of child witnesses.	Credibility instructions are essential given A’s age and the evidence.	No appropriate instruction was given; defense sought credibility guidance.	Not reviewable on retrial; issues may be addressed in new trial.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Rolon, 257 Conn. 156 (2001) (rape shield framework and five-part test for admissibility of prior sexual conduct)
State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 (1994) (cross-examination relevance; prior abuses and credibility concerns)
State v. Rinaldi, 220 Conn. 345 (1991) (inferential as well as direct evidence under 54-86f; relevance balancing)
State v. Crespo, 303 Conn. 589 (2012) (balancing probative value and prejudice under 54-86f; proper purposes)
State v. Cerreta, 260 Conn. 251 (2002) (trial court discretion in evidentiary rulings; standard of review)