Skip to main content

State v. Rosa

Citations

  • 233 Conn. App. 211

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of risk of injury to a child and sexual assault in the fourth degree as a result of his abuse of the minor victim, T, the defendant appealed, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court improperly limited its disclosure of certain of T's confidential medical and mental health records and refused to conduct a second in camera review of those records in light of the Supreme Court's decision in State v. Juan A. G.-P. (346 Conn. 132). Held: The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction with respect to one count each of risk of injury to a child and fourth degree sexual assault, predicated on the defendant's conduct in touching T in her buttock area, as T's testimony at trial was consistent with her statements during her forensic interview by a clinical social worker describing how the defendant had contact with her buttock while she was asleep. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting into evidence portions of a video recording of T's forensic interview with a clinical social worker under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule in a provision (§ 8-3 (5)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, as an objective observer reasonably could conclude that T's disclosures during the inter- view, in particular her statement regarding DNA, were made, at least in part, for the purpose of receiving medical treatment and were pertinent to that end. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by declining to release portions of T's confidential medical and mental health records or by redacting por- tions of those records it did disclose, and, in rejecting the defendant's request that it conduct a second review of those records in light of Juan A. G.-P., the court correctly concluded that Juan A. G.-P. did not alter the standard applicable to in camera review of confidential records and indicated that, in conducting its review, it had searched the records for both relevant exculpatory and inculpatory m

Judges: Alvord; Elgo; Westbrook

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

1 case in this archive cites this case.

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

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.