Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child. On appeal, the defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence regarding contact with the victim’s buttock area, the trial court’s admission of a forensic interview video under the medical diagnosis and treatment hearsay exception, and the court’s redaction of the victim’s confidential medical and mental health records. The court held that the evidence was sufficient to support the verdict, the forensic interview fell within the hearsay exception, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting disclosure of the confidential records.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Rosa's convictions for sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child based on the allegation that he touched T in her buttock area.
- Whether the trial court improperly admitted portions of T's videotaped forensic interview under the medical diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule.
- Whether the trial court improperly limited disclosure and redacted portions of T's confidential medical and mental health records, and whether it erred by declining to conduct a second in camera review under State v. Juan A. G.-P.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to permit the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Rosa had contact with T's buttock, an intimate part, as alleged in the information.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting portions of T's videotaped forensic interview under § 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by limiting disclosure and redacting portions of T's confidential records or by declining to conduct a second in camera review.
Key quotations
“On the basis of T’s statements during the interview, in particular her statement regarding DNA, and, more importantly, the circumstances in which she made those statements, including the location and nature of the interview, an objective observer reasonably could conclude that T’s disclosures during the interview were made, at least in part, for the purpose of receiving medical treatment and were pertinent to that end.” (233 Conn. App. 211)
“We agree with the trial court that Juan A. G.-P. did not alter the standard applicable to an in camera review of confidential records and that, to the extent the Supreme Court clarified that courts have a duty to search for both relevant exculpatory and inculpatory material in conducting their review, the trial court indicated that it had done so in this case.” (233 Conn. App. 211)
Factual background
Rosa lived with his girlfriend and her children, including T, beginning when T was ten years old. T testified that, while she was asleep, Rosa pulled down her underwear and rubbed beneath her buttock and later rubbed her vaginal area; she also testified about an incident in which Rosa touched her breasts. T disclosed the abuse to family members and later gave a statement to police and participated in a forensic interview at the Yale Child Abuse Clinic. The trial court reviewed T's confidential medical and mental health records in camera, disclosed portions with redactions, and declined to conduct a second review after State v. Juan A. G.-P.
Procedural history
The state charged Rosa by substitute long-form information with two counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree and five counts of risk of injury to a child. After the state's case, the Superior Court granted a judgment of acquittal as to one count and denied acquittal as to the other challenged counts. The jury convicted Rosa of five counts, the court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years, execution suspended after seven years, followed by ten years of probation and lifetime sex-offender registration, and Rosa appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed.