State v. Ortega
Citations
- 345 Conn. 220
Syllabus
Pursuant to the tender years hearsay exception (§ 54-86l (a) and Conn. Code Evid. § 8-10), ''a statement by a child twelve years of age or younger at the time of the statement relating to a sexual offense committed against that child . . . shall be admissible in a criminal . . . proceeding . . . if [inter alia] (1) [t]he court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury . . . that the circumstances of the statement, including its timing and content, provide particularized guarantees of its trustworthiness . . . .'' Convicted of numerous crimes, including sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, in connection with the sexual abuse of the victim, N, the defendant appealed. N was three years old at the time of the abuse and is the daughter of the defendant's cousin, J. The abuse occurred when N was alone with the defendant at his house, and N made four disclosures concerning the abuse shortly after it occurred. N made the first disclosure to J's mother, B, after B picked N up from the defendant's house on the day of the incident. B asked if N would like to return to the defendant's house to see his cat again, and N replied that she did not because the defendant had pulled down her pants. The second disclosure occurred shortly after N and B returned home, during which N told J that the defendant had seen her ''behind.'' In response, J asked N if the defendant had also touched her behind, and N pointed to her ''front private area.'' J spoke to B and then went to change N's clothes, when N made the third disclosure. J asked N if the defendant had pulled down her shorts. N initially said ''no'' but then said ''yes.'' When J asked if the defendant had pulled down her underpants, N initially said nothing but then said that he had. N then demonstrated how the defendant had touched her by inserting her finger inside ''where you pee . . . .'' N made the fourth disclosure to J the next morning, while J was bathing N. J made an audio re
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
2 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Crawford v. WashingtonSupreme Court· 2004-03-08· cited 14,756×
- Ohio v. RobertsSupreme Court· 1980-06-25· cited 5,425×
- Idaho v. WrightSupreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 2,081×
- State v. WhelanSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1986-08-05· cited 393×
- California v. TybergSupreme Court· 1986-12-01· cited 383×
- State v. HamiltonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1994-01-11· cited 100×
- State v. MerriamSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2003-07-15· cited 88×
- State v. Aaron L.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2005-02-15· cited 59×
- State v. D.G.Supreme Court of New Jersey· 1999-02-09· cited 28×
- State v. Manuel T.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2020-11-19· cited 22×
- Thomas v. StateSupreme Court of Delaware· 1999-02-26· cited 13×
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.