· 2/11/2025

State v. Adam P.

Citations

  • 351 Conn. 213

Syllabus

Convicted of multiple counts of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child in connection with the sexual abuse of the minor victims, D and T, the defendant appealed to this court. He claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his due process right to a fair trial by instructing the jury, in accordance with this court's directive in State v. Daniel W. E. (322 Conn. 593), that it was not to consider the victims' approximately nine year delay in officially reporting the abuse at issue in assessing their credibility. Held: This court overruled that portion of Daniel W. E. that modified the constancy of accusation doctrine, as set forth in State v. Troupe (237 Conn. 284), and returned to the standard previously articulated in Troupe, which provides that a person to whom a sexual assault victim has reported the assault may testify only with respect to the fact and timing of the victim's complaint, that constancy evidence is admissible only to corroborate the victim's testi- mony and not for substantive purposes, and that a defendant is entitled to an instruction that a victim's delay in reporting is a factor that the jury can consider in evaluating the victim's credibility. This court concluded that Troupe, along with other avenues available to negate juror biases, such as expert testimony and the application of the rules of evidence, sufficiently balanced the defendant's interest in being free from the undue prejudice that may result from the presentation of multiple constancy witnesses with the state's interest in overcoming poten- tial jury bias against sexual assault victims who delay in reporting. The defendant was not entitled to a new trial because any error with respect to the trial court's instructing the jury in accordance with Daniel W. E. was harmless, as any such error was not constitutional in nature and it was not reasonably probable that the instruction misled the jury in arriving at its verdict. In accordance with our pol

Judges: McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Dannehy

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.