· 8/31/2021

State v. Dionne

Citations

  • 207 Conn. App. 106

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that the trial court committed plain error by permitting the victim's mother to testify as a constancy of accusation witness regarding statements the victim made to her disclosing the assault perpetrated by the defendant: the defendant's counsel raised the issue of the victim's delayed disclosure of the assault at trial during his cross-examination of the victim, thus, the court's admission of the mother's constancy of accusation testimony was consistent with the procedures established by our Supreme Court in State v. Daniel W. E. (322 Conn. 593) and contained in the applicable provision (§ 6-11) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence; moreover, the defendant's claim that the victim's disclosure of the assault within twenty-four hours should have precluded the use of constancy of accusa- tion testimony was an issue of first impression and, thus, the defendant failed to establish the existence of an error so obvious it affected the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceed- ings. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that the trial court committed plain error by admitting into evidence a videotape of the victim's forensic interview under the constancy of accusation doctrine or pursuant to the medical diagnosis or treatment exception to the rule against hearsay evidence; nothing in the record indicates that the videotape was admitted pursuant to the constancy of accusation doc- trine, and, as the defendant did not object to the admissibility of the videotape on any grounds or question the victim regarding her under- standing of the purpose of the interview during trial, the record was inadequate to determine whether the victim understood that what she said during the interview was for the purpose of recei

Judges: Prescott; Moll; Lavery

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.