State v. Victor C.
145 Conn. App. 54
Conn. App. Ct.2013Background
- Defendant Victor C. was convicted by jury of risk of injury to a child under § 53-21(a)(2).
- The victim, then 13, testified to a nighttime incident where the defendant allegedly rubbed his erect penis on her breasts and vagina after entering her bedroom.
- The incident occurred in 2009 while the victim was living with relatives and the mother was at a drug rehabilitation center.
- The state later filed substitute information expanding the time frame for the alleged crimes from November/December 2009 to March–December 2009, and later amended it again; the defense objected.
- Prior to trial, the court allowed the substitute information to conform to anticipated testimony and denied the defense’s request for a continuance to prepare for the expanded period.
- The court admitted the victim’s statements via a nurse practitioner under the medical treatment hearsay exception, and the jury found the defendant guilty of the charged offense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence to support the § 53-21(a)(2) conviction | Moore: the victim’s testimony, if believed, established the elements | C.: inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence undermine credibility | Yes; sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction |
| Whether the substitute information expanding the time period was proper and whether a continuance was required | State: time not an essential element; amendment necessary to conform to evidence | C.: expansion violated due process and right to confrontation; continuance needed | Yes; amendment proper and no abuse of discretion in denying continuance |
| Whether the hearsay statements of the victim admitted via Murphy were admissible under the medical treatment exception | State: statements were for medical diagnosis/treatment and history | C.: statements were for fabrication evidence, not medical purposes | Yes; admissible under § 8-3(5) and Arroyo framework |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Madore, 96 Conn. App. 271 (2006) (jury may rely on single witness; credibility determinations defer to finder of fact)
- State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207 (2007) (hearsay rulings reviewed de novo when based on legal question; medical exception analysis)
- State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (2007) (admission of child-victim statements via medical/forensic witness under medical exception; confrontation clause considerations)