State v. Smith
166 A.3d 691
Conn. App. Ct.2017Background
- Victim (13–15 years old during relevant period) alleged repeated sexual contact by defendant Stacy Smith between 2007–2009, including digital penetration and cunnilingus; defendant was older and lived with family friend.
- Victim disclosed the abuse in January 2011; police investigator Kelsey interviewed the victim and then obtained a voluntary statement from Smith in February 2011 in which Smith admitted inappropriate touching but denied intercourse.
- Victim’s mother (M) showed investigators a text message from Smith that was described as apologetic and admitting conduct; the phone was later damaged and the message content could not be recovered from phone-company records.
- Smith was charged and, after a jury trial, convicted of multiple counts: two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree, and four counts of risk of injury to a child; sentenced to an effective 30 years plus 5 years special parole.
- On appeal Smith raised (1) a Connecticut constitutional due process claim that police failed to preserve the potentially exculpatory text message, and (2) a double jeopardy claim that convictions for both § 53a-71(a)(1) (sexual assault 2nd) and § 53-21(a)(2) (risk of injury) for the same acts produced multiple punishments.
- The Appellate Court affirmed: it declined to reach the due process claim on Golding grounds because the record was inadequate (trial court made no Asherman findings), and it rejected the double jeopardy claim, holding the statutes require proof of different elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Smith) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Did police failure to preserve Smith’s text message violate Smith’s state-constitutional due process rights? | Record inadequate to review because defendant did not raise the claim below; if considered, state contends no bad-faith requirement under Morales but trial findings needed. | M showed investigators the apologetic text; police had duty to preserve it and its loss prejudiced Smith (impeachment and adverse-inference relief). | Not reviewed on merits: Golding fails because the record is inadequate—trial court made no factual findings under Asherman/Morales; no remand warranted. |
| 2. Do convictions for sexual assault in the second degree (§ 53a-71(a)(1)) and risk of injury to a child (§ 53-21(a)(2)) for the same acts violate double jeopardy? | The offenses are distinct statutory crimes and each requires an element the other does not (sexual intercourse element vs. sexual-and-indecent-likely-to-impair element). | Prosecutor’s use of identical factual allegations for both counts made the convictions for the same offense and resulted in multiple punishments. | Rejected: Blockburger test applied; each statute requires proof of a fact the other does not, so convictions do not violate double jeopardy. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707 (Conn. 1995) (state-constitutional standard and Asherman balancing for failure-to-preserve evidence claims)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (criteria for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51 (U.S. 1988) (federal due-process standard requiring bad faith for lost potentially useful evidence)
- State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984) (balancing test factors for unavailable evidence)
- State v. Bletsch, 281 Conn. 5 (Conn. 2007) (holding risk-of-injury and sexual-assault statutes are distinct for double jeopardy purposes)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (test whether each offense requires proof of a fact the other does not)
- State v. Johnson, 288 Conn. 236 (Conn. 2008) (discussion of preserving evidence and state-constitutional analysis)
- State v. Walker, 147 Conn. App. 1 (Conn. App. 2013) (Golding review denied where defendant failed to raise state due-process claim at trial and record lacked necessary findings)