State v. Giovanni D.
Citations
- 353 Conn. 742
Syllabus
Convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child, and aggravated sexual assault of a minor in connection with the sexual abuse of the victim, J, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting into evidence certain statements that J had made during a forensic interview concerning the sexual abuse at issue under the exception to the hearsay rule for statements made for the purpose of obtaining medical diagnosis or treatment set forth in § 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence (medical treatment exception). Held: This court clarified that hearsay statements can be admitted under the medical treatment exception only when the declarant was motivated, at least in part, by a desire to obtain medical diagnosis or treatment and the declarant's statements were reasonably pertinent to achieving that end. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting, under the medical treat- ment exception, certain statements that J had made during the forensic interview through the testimony of A, who conducted the interview, as the state failed to demonstrate that the circumstances surrounding the forensic interview would have allowed an objective observer to infer that J under- stood the medical purpose of the forensic interview. The forensic interview occurred at a child advocacy center rather than a medical facility, there was no indication that the interview setting would have alerted J to the medical nature of the interview, the record was silent as to any representations that A had made to J regarding the nature of the interview and was limited as to the specific questions that A asked J, the record also was silent as to whether J discussed any physical or mental health concerns during the interview, and the timing of the interview, at least ten months after the last instance of abuse and five months after J's In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy
Judges: Mullins; McDonald; D’Auria; Ecker; Alexander; Dannehy; Bright
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced 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.