· 3/1/2022

State v. Daniel M.

Citations

  • 210 Conn. App. 819

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed to this court. At trial, the trial court admitted the testimony of the victim, W, and W's mother, that the defendant physically abused W's mother. The state offered this testimony to explain W's alleged delayed disclosure of sexual abuse by the defen- dant when she was a minor. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the court erred in admitting the allegations of domestic violence as evidence of uncharged prior misconduct. Held that the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the uncharged misconduct evidence because it incorrectly determined that the probative value of that evidence was not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial effect: the evidence was relevant because, when assessed in light of the expert testimony offered at trial regarding domes- tic violence as a reason a victim may delay disclosure of abuse, it was probative of W's credibility, as it provided an explanation as to why she delayed in disclosing the sexual abuse against her, although the defendant did not hit W or threaten her with violence, W testified that she observed the violence between the defendant and her mother, which occurred on a near weekly basis, and it scared her; moreover, the probative value of the challenged testimony was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect, as the evidence of domestic violence between the defendant and W's mother was less extreme and therefore less prejudi- cial than the uncharged domestic violence evidence considered by this court in State v. Gerald A. (183 Conn. App. 82), and it did not tend to unnecessarily arouse the jurors' emotions, especially in light of the nature of the crimes with which the defendant had been charged, namely, sexual abuse of a child, did not create a distracting side issue as it pertained to the credibility of the state's key witnesses, and presentation o

Judges: Alvord; Cradle; Lavine

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.