Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the defendant's convictions for sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child. The court found sufficient evidence that the abuse continued after the victim turned thirteen, satisfying the statutory age requirements. Furthermore, the court held that the trial court properly denied midtrial continuance requests and proceeded with the trial and sentencing in absentia after the defendant intentionally absconded, constituting a waiver of his right to be present.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for sexual assault in the second degree and one count of risk of injury to a child.
- Whether denial of the defendant's midtrial requests for continuances violated his constitutional rights to due process and counsel or constituted an abuse of discretion.
- Whether the trial court plainly erred or violated the defendant's constitutional right to be present by failing to advise him of the consequences of failing to appear and by trying and sentencing him in absentia.
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying defense counsel's motion for a mistrial after the defendant failed to appear.
- Whether the trial court plainly erred by failing sua sponte to discharge defense counsel and declare a mistrial.
- Whether the appeal concerning the exclusion of cross-examination about an alleged prior false accusation was moot because the defendant failed to challenge an independent ground for the trial court's ruling.
Holdings
- The evidence was sufficient to support the convictions for sexual assault in the second degree and one count of risk of injury to a child because the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant's abuse continued after the victim turned thirteen.
- The defendant failed under the third prong of State v. Golding to establish that denial of the midtrial continuances violated his constitutional rights to due process or counsel.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant's requests for thirty- or fifteen-day continuances.
- The trial court did not plainly err or violate the defendant's constitutional right to be present by trying and sentencing him in absentia without a separate advisement of the consequences of failing to appear.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defense counsel's motion for a mistrial after the defendant failed to appear for the continuation of trial.
- The court declined to review the claim because the record was inadequate under the first prong of Golding and therefore also inadequate for plain-error review.
- The appeal was dismissed as moot because the defendant failed to challenge an independent, non-rape-shield basis for excluding the proposed cross-examination.
Key quotations
“The trial court is not required to preemptively notify a defendant that his case will proceed in his absence without any indication that he would be absent at some later time.” (part III)
“The court was not obliged to “[permit] [the] defendant unilaterally to prevent his case from going forward” by granting him the benefit of a mistrial when he failed to appear.” (part IV)
Factual background
The victim was born on September 14, 1998, and knew the defendant, a friend of her father who later entered a relationship with her mother, throughout her life. The victim testified that beginning when she was approximately nine years old, the defendant repeatedly touched her breasts and genital area in her bedroom. The evidence conflicted regarding when the abuse ended and whether it continued after the victim's thirteenth birthday, but other testimony and portions of the victim's testimony supported the conclusion that it continued until approximately one year after she turned thirteen. During trial, the defendant sought to discharge counsel and obtain a lengthy continuance, then failed to appear for the trial's continuation and later for sentencing.
Procedural history
The defendant was tried in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Windham and convicted on November 10, 2014. During the trial, he failed to appear, and the court completed the trial and later sentenced him in absentia. The trial court denied motions for continuances and a mistrial. The defendant later obtained habeas relief restoring his right to appeal, and the Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the direct appeal to the Connecticut Appellate Court. The Appellate Court dismissed the appeal as to the evidentiary claim concerning the rape shield statute and affirmed the judgment in all other respects.