State v. Prince A.
Citations
- 196 Conn. App. 413
Syllabus
Convicted of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant's conviction stemmed from his alleged sexual abuse of the victim, his daughter, who did not report the assault until a few years later. On cross-examination of the victim, the defendant challenged her credibility and her delay in reporting the assault. After the state offered the testimony of A, a constancy of accusation witness, the defendant elicited on cross-examination of A that she believed that the victim had reported the assault contemporaneously, without delay. The defendant then moved to strike A's testimony on the ground that there was no justification for having a constancy of accusation witness testify when the witness testifies that there was no delay in the victim's reporting of the assault. The trial court denied the defendant's motion on the ground that, under the Supreme Court's modification of the constancy of accusation doctrine in State v. Daniel W. E. (322 Conn. 593), the state was permitted to present A's testimony because the defendant had challenged the victim's credibility and her delay in reporting the assault. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly admitted A's testimony to refute any negative infer- ences the jury might have drawn from the victim's delay in reporting the assault. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to strike A's testimony, that court having properly applied the constancy of accusation doctrine as modified in Daniel W. E.; A's testimony was proper because the defendant undisput- edly challenged the victim's credibility on cross-examination when he inquired about her delayed reporting, such delay was for the jury to consider in evaluating the weight to be given to the victim's testimony, it was the fact of the victim's having reported her complaint to A that was relev
Judges: Lavine; Bright; Devlin
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.