State v. VICTOR O., 20 A.3d 669

Background

Victor O. was convicted by a jury of one count of first-degree sexual assault and two counts of risk of injury to a child arising from his abuse of C, the son of his wife.
The trial court sentenced him to 30 years with 15 suspended, plus 20 years of probation; the defendant appealed challenging multiple trial rulings and the sentence.
Key contested rulings included excluding Abel test evidence intended to show lack of sexual interest in prepubescent males, and excluding other evidence about C's mother's use of the computer or adult dating sites.
The state presented expert testimony on forensic interviews of abuse victims; the defense objected to questions about the purpose and credibility of such interviews.
The state referred to C as the victim during trial, a point the defense claimed was improper and prejudicial.
The defendant contends there were prosecutorial improprieties in closing argument and that the first-degree sexual assault sentence violated statutes requiring a period of special parole.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of Abel test results	Abel test lacks reliability; not a valid diagnostic tool for guilt.	Abel test could show lack of sexual interest and is relevant to motive; under Porter reliability supports admissibility.	Abel test results were properly excluded; not sufficiently reliable for guilt-phase admissibility.
Admissibility of evidence about C's mother's porn/adult sites	Evidence would support alternative sources of C's sexual knowledge and potential bias/motive.	Such evidence is probative of alternative source and motive to fabricate; Rolon standard applies.	Trial court did not abuse; evidence failed Rolon prerequisites and lacked probative value; exclusion affirmed.
Redirection testimony on forensic interviews and credibility	Testimony helps explain forensic interview process and credibility framework for victims.	Testimony improperly usurps the jury by commenting on credibility of the child witness.	Court allowed the testimony; defense opened door during cross-examination; no abuse of discretion.
Use of the term 'victim' by the state in front of the jury	Isolated usage improperly suggests guilt by inflaming the jury.	Prosecutor's use was improper and prejudicial; Warholic guidance discourages overuse.	Isolated instance not improper or prejudicial; no reversible error.
Sentence for first-degree sexual assault	Sentence complies with § 53a-70(b)(3) requiring a period of special parole.	Sentence with probation rather than special parole violates statute and must be corrected.	Illegal sentence; remanded for resentencing on the first-degree sexual assault count.

Key Cases Cited

State v. Porter, 241 Conn. 57 (1997) (Daubert-type reliability and relevance for scientific evidence in Connecticut)
State v. Warholic, 278 Conn. 354 (2006) (prosecutor's use of 'victim'—limits on prejudicial impact)
State v. Rolon, 257 Conn. 156 (2001) (test for admissibility of evidence of a victim's prior sexual knowledge)
State v. Iban C., 275 Conn. 624 (2005) (limits on expert testimony regarding credibility of a witness)
State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785 (2005) (trial court discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence and door-opening concepts)