State v. Samuel U.
Citations
- 348 Conn. 304
Syllabus
Convicted, after a trial to the court, of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child in connection with his sexual abuse of the victim, T, the defendant appealed to this court. The abuse occurred between 2007 and 2010, during which time T was between seven and ten years old. Prior to trial, the state provided written notice of its intent to present evidence of four episodes of the defendant's prior sexual misconduct to prove his propensity to engage in such conduct, pursuant to the relevant provision (§ 4-5 (b)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence. The notice did not identify the victims of the prior misconduct but included the approximate dates when the misconduct occurred and the nature of the misconduct, the respective dates of the defendant's convictions for each episode, and the docket numbers associated with those convictions. The third entry in the notice con- cerned the sexual assault of a four year old female in 1993, which involved digital penetration and vaginal and anal intercourse. The defen- dant did not contest the adequacy of the notice before trial. At trial, the state offered the testimony of S, the defendant's daughter, as propensity evidence. S testified that, in 1993, when she was four years old, the defendant had rubbed her genitals and had rubbed his genitals against her genitals. Defense counsel objected to the admission of S's testimony on the grounds that the events S described were too remote in time to In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the 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 victims or others through whom the victims' identities may be ascertained. See General Statutes § 54-86e. 348 Conn. 304 NOVEMBER, 2023 305 State v. Samuel U. be relevant and that S and T were not similar victims. The trial court overruled defense counsel's objection and admitted S's testimony into evidenc
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- dissenting opinion of Judge Clark
- dissenting opinion of Judge Clark
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Ecker; Alexander; Cradle
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.