State v. Robert R.

340 Conn. 69

262 A.3d 810

STATE of Connecticut

v.ROBERT R.^*

SC 20355

Supreme Court of Connecticut.

Argued May 6, 2021

Officially released August 6, 2021^**

Cameron L. Atkinson, with whom, on the brief, were Norman A. Pattis, Bethany, Kevin Smith and Zachary Reiland, for the appellant (defendant).

Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, and Ann F. Lawlor, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.

McDONALD, J.

The defendant, Robert R., appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault in the first degree. On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court violated his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel by precluding defense counsel during closing argument from arguing to the jury that the complainant, M, had planted physical evidence on a paper towel in an effort to substantiate her false allegations against the defendant, (2) there was insufficient evidence to prove that the defendant used force or the threat of force, as required to sustain his conviction of sexual assault in the first degree, and (3) the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony from a witness who specializes in child and adolescent sexual abuse. We agree with the defendant with respect to his first claim and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of conviction.

The jury reasonably could have found the following relevant facts. When M was twelve years old, she moved to Bridgeport to live with her father, Louis, stepmother, Dora, and stepsister, Isabelle. Another of M's stepsisters, Stephanie, was dating the defendant. Stephanie and the defendant lived together down the street from Louis and Dora. At the time M moved to Bridgeport, the defendant was in his mid-twenties. M testified that the defendant sexually assaulted her on multiple occasions and exposed her to sexually inappropriate situations when she was between the ages of thirteen and eighteen years old. Specifically, M testified to four incidents.

The first incident described by M occurred when she was thirteen years old. One evening, the defendant came to M's house because he had an argument with Stephanie. Louis told the defendant that he could "stay on the couch." M testified that, when she brought the defendant a blanket, he "touch[ed] [her] butt," followed her to her bedroom, and sexually assaulted her. M testified that, the next morning, the defendant sexually assaulted her a second time in her bedroom. M told Louis about the sexual assaults, and Louis and Dora then took her to Bridgeport Hospital. M ultimately left the hospital before being examined by a physician. Louis’ testimony regarding this incident, however, varied from M's. He testified that, on the evening in question, he and the defendant were watching wrestling and drinking beer in the living room. The defendant went upstairs to use the bathroom. Louis recalled that he went upstairs and found the defendant, fully clothed, looking in on M while she slept. He then told the defendant to "get the hell out," and the defendant left the house. Louis also testified that he found the defendant hiding in the closet in M's bedroom one morning but could not recall if it was the morning after he first found the defendant looking in on M.

M also recounted a second incident. She testified that, when she was thirteen years old, the defendant asked her to send him nude pictures of herself. M testified that she complied and that the defendant then sent her a nude picture of himself. Isabelle, however, testified that she was present when the defendant and Stephanie informed Louis that M had been sending the defendant nude pictures of herself. Isabelle also testified that she did not know anything about the defendant sending pictures to M. Finally, Isabelle recalled that M had a history of "making false claims."

M described a third incident that occurred when she was fourteen or fifteen years old. M testified that, one night, when her friend, V, slept over at her house, the defendant came into M's bedroom, removed her clothes, and sexually assaulted her. V confirmed that she regularly slept over at M's house. She stated that, during the sleepovers, she would sleep in M's twin bed with M. V testified, however, that she did not recall the defendant ever entering M's bedroom while she slept over.

Finally, M testified that a fourth incident occurred on July 28, 2016, when M was eighteen years old. Specifically, M recounted that, after returning home from a summer program at a nearby university, she let her dog out into her fenced in backyard. Shortly thereafter, the defendant knocked on the front door. When M opened the door, she saw the defendant holding her dog, and he explained that he found the dog down the street from M's house. M took the dog from the defendant, and the defendant asked M where Louis was. M responded that he had not arrived home from work. M then asked the defendant to leave because Louis did not want him there when M was home alone. M testified that the defendant, instead of leaving, kept inching into the home, until he grabbed M's arm, pushed her toward the living room couch, and sexually assaulted her. M testified that, during the assault, "I was trying to push him off me with my arms, but he kept holding [them] down, so I kept turning my body like this, with my knees, trying to push him off me, and he didn't want to get off. And I was yelling, help, can you stop, can you get off me, and then he didn't want to get off me." M testified that the defendant ended the assaultive sexual intercourse with her suddenly when he was startled by a car pulling out of a neighbor's driveway. According to M, the defendant got off of her, went into the kitchen, began to masturbate, ejaculated into a paper towel, threw the paper towel into a garbage can, and left.

Following the assault, M called Louis and told him what had just transpired. She also texted Isabelle that the defendant had "touched" her and that she "fe[lt] disgusted." The police were subsequently called, and M reported the incident to officers on the scene and provided them with the paper towel into which she claimed the defendant had ejaculated. M was then taken by ambulance to the hospital, where medical personnel performed a physical examination and administered a sexual assault evidence collection kit. The defendant was interviewed by the police and denied having any sexual contact with M.

In connection with the allegations made by M, the state charged the defendant with one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (1), one count of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1), one count of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (1).

At trial, the defendant testified in his own defense. He denied each allegation, stating that he never sexually assaulted M. The defendant, however, did admit to having consensual sex with M on July 28, 2016, when she was eighteen years old, a claim that he denied when he was initially questioned by the police. He explained to the jury that he lied to the police initially because he was being interviewed within earshot of Stephanie, and she did not know at that point that he had "cheat[ed] on" her with M. The defendant testified that he began having consensual, physical encounters with M in March, 2016. He stated that the encounters began with "romantic conversations" in the car, then progressed to making out, and eventually led to the two having consensual sex. The defendant testified that they had consensual sex on two occasions: first, approximately one week prior to the July, 2016 incident in M's home, and, the second time, on July 28, 2016.

With respect to the July 28, 2016 incident, the defendant testified that he had found M's dog on the street and took it back to her house. When M opened the door, she hugged him, and they began to kiss. According to the defendant, things quickly progressed, and the two began having sex against the doorway. The defendant testified that, shortly after moving to the couch, he became self-conscious, realizing that this was the time that Louis typically arrived home from work, and he was worried that Louis would walk in on them. The defendant further testified that, as a result, he ended the encounter, left the house, and went home. The defendant specifically denied M's claim that he ejaculated into a paper towel and threw it in the garbage can, explaining that, after he stopped having sexual intercourse, he just pulled up his pants and left. He also testified that M did not seem upset when he left the house.

Jennifer Nelson, a forensic biologist, also testified at trial. Nelson testified that she analyzed the bodily fluids found on the paper towel at the state forensic laboratory. Specifically, she conducted tests on the paper towel, looking for the presence of semen and spermatozoa.¹ These tests revealed the presence of semen on the paper towel but were negative for spermatozoa.

Nelson testified that she did not know how the substances came to be on the paper towel. Angela Przech, who works as a forensic science examiner at the state forensic laboratory, testified that she performed DNA testing on a stain found on the paper towel. Przech's testing revealed that the defendant's DNA profile was included in a DNA mixture found in an epithelial fraction sample of the stain.² Przech testified that she assumed that M was the other DNA contributor. Regarding the DNA profile found in the sperm-rich fraction sample, M was eliminated as a source, and the defendant's "profile was inconclusive when compared to the evidentiary sample." In short, Przech's testing revealed that the...