State v. Thompson, 2013 WL 5314529

Background

On Nov. 14, 2008, V.D. accepted a stranger's invitation to meet his purported sister at her home; once inside, the defendant prevented her leaving, struck her, threatened to kill her, forced her to undress and raped her. DNA and other forensic evidence linked the defendant to the assault.
V.D. later woke the woman she thought was the defendant’s sister, who roused the defendant; V.D. fled, reported the assault, and provided the defendant’s social security card to police.
Defendant was tried by jury and convicted of first‑degree kidnapping, first‑degree sexual assault, third‑degree assault, and second‑degree threatening; sentenced to an effective 45 years (execution suspended after 35), plus 10 years probation.
On appeal the defendant raised three principal claims: (1) prejudicial, inadmissible testimony by the complainant implying uncharged prior bad acts; (2) prosecutorial impropriety for repeatedly calling V.D. the “victim” despite court admonitions; and (3) insufficiency of evidence for first‑degree kidnapping under Salamon and Sanseverino.
Trial court excluded the complainant’s spontaneous statement that the defendant had “done this before” but found the jury had not heard it; defense did not seek further curative relief and thus the claim was treated as waived.
The trial court repeatedly sustained objections and issued multiple curative instructions after the prosecutor used the term “victim” several times; the court denied multiple motions for mistrial. The jury convicted on all counts.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thompson)	Held
Admissibility of complainant’s statement that defendant said he’d “done this before”	Statement was an admission and admissible; court ultimately excluded it as unfairly prejudicial	Statement was inadmissible evidence of other crimes and deprived him of a fair trial; seeks new trial or plain‑error review	Waived — defense acquiesced to court’s finding jury did not hear it; Golding review denied because claim is evidentiary and affirmatively waived
Prosecutor repeatedly calling complainant the “victim” despite admonitions	Occasional usage is excusable if inadvertent and curative instructions given; not prejudicial here	Repetitive use violated due process and warranted mistrial or new trial	Impropriety occurred (term improperly used repeatedly), but prejudice cured — curative instructions and prosecutor apologies preserved fairness; no new trial
Sufficiency of evidence for first‑degree kidnapping (intent element)	Evidence (force, threats, restraint on floor, attempts to lunge) supported inference defendant intended further physical injury or sexual abuse when restraining V.D.	Restraint was incidental to the sexual assault and lacked the independent intent required under Salamon/Sanseverino	Held sufficient — jury reasonably could infer intent to further harm or sexually abuse when defendant restrained V.D. on floor; kidnapping conviction affirmed

Key Cases Cited

State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (framework for when movement or confinement has independent criminal significance for kidnapping)
State v. Sanseverino, 291 Conn. 574 (further explication of Salamon standard for kidnapping)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (caution against excessive use of the term "victim" as prejudicial)
State v. Victor O., 301 Conn. 163 (noting prudence of avoiding the term "victim" and assessing isolated use)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (factors for assessing prosecutorial impropriety and due‑process impact)
State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469 (unpreserved, waived claims fail under Golding)