State v. Thomas, 173 A.3d 430

Background

Crimes charged: William B. Thomas convicted of first‑degree sexual assault, first‑degree unlawful restraint, and second‑degree false statement based on an alleged rape after consensual sexual contact earlier the same night; verdict followed a three‑day jury trial.
Key contested evidence: victim had consensual sex earlier that evening with at least one other man (Boyle) and possibly another (Roberge); a hospital nurse recorded that the victim denied other partners in prior 72 hours; DNA from kit showed defendant plus an unnamed contributor; photographs showed scrapes/bruises and items of the victim’s clothing near the scene.
Pretrial § 54‑86f (rape‑shield) motions: defendant sought to admit prior sexual conduct with Boyle and Roberge to impeach credibility, show alternative source of injuries, and show motive/bias; trial court excluded evidence of sexual conduct with anyone other than defendant but allowed nonsexual relationship questioning.
Trial developments: nurse Underwood testified that rough consensual sex, digital penetration, or menstruation can cause bloody vaginal discharge; defendant raised post‑verdict an untested photograph allegedly of a makeshift panty liner; defendant did not testify.
Procedural posture: defendant raised multiple claims on appeal: (1) rape‑shield exclusion violated confrontation/presentation rights, (2) denial of funds for investigative services violated due process, and (3) prosecutor’s closing argument was improper and prejudicial. Appellate court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Admissibility under §54‑86f(a)(2) / impeachment (prior sexual conduct)	Exclusion proper because victim did not testify on direct about sexual conduct with others; statute requires direct testimony about sexual conduct to trigger exception	Prior statements and trial testimony (about source of bleeding) permitted inference that she had no other partners, so exclusion violated his confrontation/right to present defense	Affirmed exclusion: victim did not testify (explicitly or by reasonable inference) about conduct with others, so (a)(2) did not apply; Golding analysis fails on deprivation prong
Admissibility under §54‑86f(a)(4) / impeachment with inconsistent hospital statement	State: impeachment via other inconsistent statements already allowed; nurse statement would be cumulative and marginal	Nurse’s recorded denial of other partners in 72 hours was highly reliable and constitutionally required for confrontation/impeachment	Exclusion not constitutionally violative: impeachment on other inconsistencies was already available; nurse statement would be duplicative and of marginal additional value
Admissibility under §54‑86f(a)(1) / alternative source of vaginal and non‑vaginal injuries	State: proffer inadequate to show sexual encounters with others occurred at locations or in manner likely to cause the observed injuries; panty‑liner photo untested and speculative	Prior intercourse with Boyle/Roberge could explain scrapes/bruises and bloody discharge; panty‑liner photo would show prior bleeding	Record inadequate or proffers speculative: (1) offer lacked facts about timing/location/nature of encounters (Golding prong 1 failure for non‑vaginal injuries); (2) no medical link established showing consensual non‑rough sex would cause these specific vaginal injuries; panty liner untested and irrelevant on record
Pretrial request for investigative funds	State: funding for investigative services for indigent self‑represented defendants falls under Public Defender Services Commission authorization per Wang; court properly denied because defendant had private counsel paid by family and failed threshold showing	Thomas: indigent and needed funds to interview bar witnesses, subpoena service, and obtain transcripts; denial violated due process and right to present defense	Denial affirmed: under State v. Wang the trial court lacked authority to grant funding (commission must authorize); even if court had discretion, defendant failed to show funds were reasonably necessary
Prosecutorial misconduct in closing (attacks on defense, ‘smoke and mirrors’, golden rule, use of documents, vouching)	State: arguments were fair response to defense, based on evidence and reasonable inferences; one phrase (“smoke and mirrors”) conceded improper but harmless	Thomas: multiple comments demeaned defense counsel, vouched for victim, appealed to juror sympathy, and referenced facts/documents not in evidence — deprived him of fair trial	Majority: most remarks were fair comment on evidence or defense theory (no reversible impropriety); “smoke and mirrors” improper but isolated and not prejudicial given case strength and curative factors; vouching claim inadequately briefed and not reviewed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standards for unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
State v. Shaw, 312 Conn. 85 (Conn. 2014) (§54‑86f relevance inquiry and admitting prior sexual conduct as alternative source when probative)
State v. Wang, 312 Conn. 222 (Conn. 2014) (state must provide investigative/expert assistance for indigent self‑represented defendants only when Public Defender Services Commission authorizes expenditures; trial court lacks authority)
Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U.S. 68 (U.S. 1985) (due process requires access to psychiatric assistance when sanity is a significant factor)
State v. Crespo, 303 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2012) (limits on cross‑examination under confrontation clause; relevance requirement)
State v. Carrasquillo, 290 Conn. 209 (Conn. 2009) (framework for assessing prosecutorial impropriety and prejudice)
State v. Maguire, 310 Conn. 535 (Conn. 2013) (prosecutorial argument standards; rhetorical latitude vs. improper appeals to emotion)
State v. Angel T., 292 Conn. 262 (Conn. 2009) (state’s burden to show prosecutorial impropriety harmless beyond a reasonable doubt)