165 Conn. App. 839
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Victim (15) met defendant Christopher Tierinni (28) in spring 2011; they engaged in sexual activity on multiple occasions in May–June 2011. Victim later missed school and stayed at defendant’s apartment.
- Police stopped the defendant’s vehicle on June 17, 2011; the victim eventually disclosed the sexual activity and the state charged multiple counts of second‑degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child.
- After a jury trial, defendant was convicted on seven counts (conduct in June 2011) and acquitted on two counts (late May 2011). Court sentenced to an effective 18 years plus 42 years special parole.
- Two main appellate claims: (1) defendant was denied the right to be present / due process because the court routinely resolved evidentiary objections at sidebar outside the defendant’s presence; (2) the court’s jury instruction on constancy of accusation was confusing and inadequately permitted use of out‑of‑court reports to impeach the victim.
- Trial judge explained and solicited counsel’s consent to a practice of brief sidebar resolution with the option to put arguments on the record at the next recess; defense counsel expressly agreed and used the procedure during trial without objection.
- Trial court gave limiting instructions about Ms. Pinard’s testimony (victim’s out‑of‑court disclosures) and later corrected the limiting instruction; defendant filed a requested charge on constancy but the court declined that exact wording and gave its own limiting instruction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Tierinni's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant was denied right to be present / due process by sidebar practice | State: Defendant (through counsel) consented to the court’s procedure; any claim is waived and record adequate but moot | Tierinni: Sidebar rulings excluded him from a critical stage and deprived him of a fair trial; appellate review warranted under Golding or plain error | Waived: counsel expressly agreed to the procedure; waiver defeats Golding/plain‑error review; claim fails |
| Whether jury instruction on constancy of accusation was improper/confusing and excluded impeachment use | State: The court’s instructions were legally correct, adapted to issues, and adequately limited the out‑of‑court statement; defendant’s specific appellate complaints were unpreserved | Tierinni: Instructions were confusing, improperly limited use of constancy testimony, and failed to tell jury they could use inconsistencies to discredit victim | Not reviewable/Fail: Defendant failed to preserve the specific complaints; the claim is not of constitutional magnitude under Golding; instructions were adequate |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
- State v. Troupe, 237 Conn. 284 (Conn. 1996) (limits substantive use of constancy‑of‑accusation testimony; admissible only for fact/timing/identity and for corroboration, subject to balancing)
- State v. Collin, 154 Conn. App. 102 (Conn. App. 2014) (standards for reviewing jury charge requests and whether substance of requested charge was given)
- State v. Vines, 71 Conn. App. 751 (Conn. App. 2002) (defendant’s right to be present at critical stages can be waived by consent)