State v. Angel M.

337 Conn. 655

255 A.3d 801

STATE of Connecticut

v.ANGEL M.^*

SC 20106

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued September 19, 2019

Officially released December 31, 2020^***

Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, former state's attorney, and Anne F. Mahoney, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn and Ecker, Js.^**

PALMER, J.

Following a jury trial, the defendant, Angel M., was convicted of sexually assaulting the twelve year old daughter of his romantic partner and sentenced to a total effective prison term of thirty-three years. The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, among other things, that the trial court had violated his right to due process at sentencing by penalizing him for refusing to apologize for his criminal misconduct. See State v. Angel M ., 180 Conn. App. 250, 253, 286, 183 A.3d 636 (2018). According to the defendant, who maintained his innocence both at trial and at the time of sentencing, the trial court's enhancement of his sentence for that reason was fundamentally unfair because it contravened his constitutional right against self-incrimination insofar as any such apology necessarily would have required him to admit guilt. See id., at 286–88, 183 A.3d 636. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant's claim, concluding that the record did not support his contention that the trial court had increased his sentence because of his unwillingness to issue an apology to the victims; see id., at 290–91, 183 A.3d 636 ; and we granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal. See State v. Angel M ., 328 Conn. 931, 182 A.3d 1192 (2018). We agree with the Appellate Court and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.

The Appellate Court opinion sets forth the following relevant facts and procedural history. "M is the mother of the victim. M became romantically involved with the defendant when the victim was approximately three or four years old. M had two children, G and the victim, from a previous relationship. The defendant was a father figure to the victim, and she was considered his stepdaughter.

"Approximately one year after the defendant and M began dating, they had a child together named A. At some point in 2000, the defendant moved in with M. They lived together with the three children, the victim, G, and A, in an apartment in [the city of] Hartford until they purchased a house in 2008.

"In 2006 or 2007, when the victim was approximately twelve years old,¹ she arrived home after school and went into her mother's bedroom to play a game on the family's computer. While she was playing on the computer, the defendant came up behind her and began kissing her neck. The victim froze. Then the defendant picked her up and threw her on the bed. He locked the bedroom door and ‘did something near the side of the bed’ before lifting up the victim's shirt and licking her breasts. The defendant proceeded to lick the victim's vagina before taking off his pants and attempting to put his penis in her vagina. The victim closed her legs, and the defendant got off of her.²

"Several years after that incident, on the evening of December 18, 2011, the defendant and M were involved in an incident outside of a restaurant in Newington. That evening, M had gone to the restaurant without the defendant. She was socializing with a female friend and another man. The defendant, who had been waiting impatiently for her to come home, decided to go to the restaurant to find her. When he arrived, he saw M socializing with a man he did not recognize. He became angry. He confronted M in the parking lot, and an argument ensued. The defendant struck M multiple times. The police arrived shortly thereafter and arrested the defendant. In January, 2012, a protective order was issued as a result of the incident. Thereafter, the defendant stopped providing financial assistance to M, and he moved out of the house and into his own apartment.

"Shortly after the defendant moved out of the house, A ceased all communication with him. The lack of communication between A and the defendant concerned M. As a result, M asked the victim to talk to A in order to figure out why A was ignoring the defendant. On February 7, 2012, the victim started a conversation with A via text messages concerning the change in [A's] relationship with the defendant. In those communications, A told the victim that the defendant had molested her. The victim also revealed that the defendant had molested her, and the victim encouraged A to tell their mother.

"Shortly after this conversation, the victim told M that A had been abused by the defendant. Upon learning about the abuse, M contacted A's therapist, Mary Mercado, who reported the abuse to the Department of Children and Families (department). The department referred the case to the Hartford Police Department, and Detective Frank Verrengia investigated the case. The victim and A both participated in forensic interviews in March, 2012. The victim disclosed her abuse during [a] forensic interview on March 8, 2012. Following an investigation, the police arrested the defendant on April 18, 2013.

The case involving A, however, was administratively closed in May, 2013."³ (Footnotes in original.) State v. Angel M ., supra, 180 Conn. App. at 253–55, 183 A.3d 636.

"The state charged the defendant with one count of sexual assault in the first degree [in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) ], one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree [in violation of § 53a-70 (a) (2) and General Statutes § 53a-49 ], and one count of risk of injury to a child [in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2) ]." Id., at 256, 183 A.3d 636. At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense that he had never touched the victim or A in a sexually inappropriate manner. His "theory of defense was that the victim and [A] both fabricated the allegations of sexual abuse. Specifically, he claimed that they made these false allegations in retaliation for his having hit [M] during the restaurant incident, and for withdrawing all financial support from the family after moving out of the house. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts." Id.

"At the sentencing hearing, the state did not provide a specific recommendation for a sentence. The state simply requested a ‘significant sentence’ for the defendant, while making clear that there was a mandatory minimum for the charged offenses. The state also noted that the defendant's ‘unwillingness to participate in any sex offender treatment programs or to acknowledge any criminal behavior ... puts him at a much higher risk’ to reoffend.

"The defendant was afforded an opportunity to address the court and [to] present additional mitigating evidence. The court heard from several individuals in support of the defendant's good character. One such individual was the defendant's current romantic partner, who has a teenage daughter, with whom the defendant had been residing during the proceedings.

"Before being sentenced, the defendant engaged in the following colloquy with the court:

" ‘[The Defendant]: The jurors found me guilty. I am innocent of these charges presented against me, and I want to appeal this case.

" ‘The Court: Well, I appreciate your position, but, in a case like this, the lifetime effects on the victims can be lessened if the person who committed these acts, particularly in a familial relationship, whether father or stepfather, takes responsibility. I know you wish to appeal, and that does create a dilemma.

" ‘[The Court Interpreter]: Your Honor, may that be repeated for the interpreter?

" ‘The Court: Well, apologizing, admitting what he did, taking responsibility will help the victims enormously; at least that has been my experience over four decades in this business. However, it puts a crimp in your ability to appeal. Do you understand that?

" ‘[The Defendant]: I did understand. But how would I say sorry for something that I did not do. These are just allegations? I love my daughter; I worked really hard for them. This was hard for me. And I work hard to support this family, two, three jobs to have our home and to lose everything because of these allegations. It's not fair.

" ‘The Court: Well, that's your decision, sir. If you wish to continue to deny it, that's your absolute right. The court will not punish you for that ; however, you do not get any extra credit . Do you have anything else you wish to say?

" ‘[The Defendant]: No. That's it for now.’ " (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 286–88, 183 A.3d 636.

"Thereafter, the court addressed the defendant and explained that ‘sentencings have to do with [the] four following considerations: rehabilitation, deterrence, protection of society, and punishment.’ The court acknowledged that the defendant had a positive presentence investigation report [(PSI) and outstanding working history] and that several people spoke on his behalf. The court considered the defendant's demeanor during the trial and his successful completion of a family violence education program." Id., at 288, 183 A.3d 636. The court also recognized "the dilemma of the appeal[s] process" as it related to the defendant's willingness to accept responsibility for his crimes but noted that, "in this type of case, it is most helpful to the victims to have an admission or an apology." The court also stated that it is "particularly important for them to be restored to [a] calm, collected, healthy mental state."

Notably, the court expressed concern that the defendant was then living with another woman and her teenaged daughter. The court then observed that "the defendant has violated the trust in a household" and was "a predator," and that, "although [the defendant] was not charged with ... crimes against his [biological] daughter [A], she did testify [as to his sexual abuse of...