State v. Juan J.
Citations
- 344 Conn. 1
Syllabus
Convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child in connection with the alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, P, on two separate occa- sions, the defendant appealed to this court. Before the defendant's trial, the state filed a notice of intent to present evidence that the defendant had inappropriately touched P in a sexual manner multiple times beyond the two charged instances. The defendant objected to the admission of such uncharged misconduct evidence, claiming, inter alia, that he was denying that the alleged sexual abuse ever occurred and that the jury could consider the uncharged misconduct as evidence of a propensity on his part to engage in sexual misconduct. The state indicated that it did not intend to offer the uncharged misconduct evidence as propensity evidence but intended to offer it under the Connecticut Code of Evidence (§ 4-5 (c)) for the purposes of proving intent, a common plan or scheme, and to complete the story of the defendant's pattern of conduct. The court overruled the defendant's objection, and P testified not only about the two charged incidents but about numerous other instances in which the defendant had allegedly touched her inappropriately. P specifically In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of alleged victims of sexual abuse and the crime of risk of injury to a child, we decline to use the defendant's full name or to identify the complainant or others through whom the complainant's identity could be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. 1 2 JULY, 2022 344 Conn. 1 State v. Juan J. testified that the defendant had touched her inappropriately more than ten times and that he touched the inside of her vagina, her butt, and her breasts. After P testified, the court instructed the jury that P's testimony regarding these additional instances could be considered only as proof that the defendant had the intent to engage in th
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- reviewing court cannot determine whether trial court abused its discretion in admitting evidence for different purpose
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. Adam P.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-02-11· cited 11×
- State v. Samuel U.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-11-28· cited 4×
- State v. Delacruz-GomezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2024-07-25· cited 2×
- State v. Anthony V.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2026-03-03· cited 1×
- State v. Marcello E.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-03-04
Cites
42 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- People v. VanderVlietMichigan Supreme Court· 1993-09-21· cited 601×
- State v. SalamonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-07-01· cited 243×
- State v. DeJesusSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-08-19· cited 196×
- State v. PayneSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-01-24· cited 144×
- State v. JamesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-06-20· cited 120×
- State v. BaldwinSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1993-01-12· cited 101×
- State v. CruzSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-05-25· cited 91×
- United States v. Onel Colon, Alvarado, Et Ano.Second Circuit· 1989-07-14· cited 90×
- Grady v. Town of SomersSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-12-22· cited 82×
- Perez-Dickson v. City of BridgeportSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2012-05-01· cited 78×
- State v. TuckerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1980-07-01· cited 74×
- State v. PiersonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-26· cited 69×
- State v. MeehanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-05-28· cited 69×
- State v. MarquezSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-04-14· cited 66×
- State v. EllisSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2004-07-27· cited 66×
- State v. HedgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2010-08-03· cited 62×
- State v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1990-03-06· cited 53×
- State v. BeaversSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2009-02-17· cited 48×
- United States v. SiddiquiSecond Circuit· 2012-11-05· cited 44×
- Vine v. Zoning Board of AppealsSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2007-03-06· cited 44×
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.