State v. Raeon A.

Syllabus

Convicted of risk of injury to a child and sexual assault in the first degree in connection with the sexual abuse of the minor victim, R, the defendant appealed to this court. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial by instructing the jury, in accordance with this court's directive in State v. Daniel W. E. (322 Conn. 593), that it was not to consider R's delayed reporting of the alleged incidents of sexual abuse in evaluating R's credibility. Held: This court declined to review the defendant's unpreserved claim of instruc- tional error under State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), as the defendant failed to demonstrate that his claim was of constitutional magnitude and, therefore, failed to satisfy the second prong of Golding. The defendant's contention that the challenged instruction in the present case violated his federal constitutional rights to due process and to a fair trial insofar as it usurped the jury's role as the sole trier of fact and diluted the state's burden of proof was inconsistent with this court's holding in State v. Adam P. (351 Conn. 213), in which this court concluded that a similar claim by the defendant in that case was not of constitutional magnitude. Moreover, this court declined the defendant's invitation to reconsider its conclusion in Adam P., as this court had only recently decided Adam P., the defendant did not present any sound reason for this court to reconsider its analysis therein, and Adam P. was consistent with a long line of appellate cases holding that alleged errors in constancy of accusation instructions are not of constitutional magnitude. Furthermore, the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court had committed plain error when it instructed the jury not to consider R's delay in reporting the alleged sexual abuse, as the court's instruction was consistent with Daniel W. E., which was the governing law a