State v. Sullivan

220 Conn.App. 403

298 A.3d 1238

STATE of Connecticut

v.Casey Liem SULLIVAN

AC 45378

Appellate Court of Connecticut.

Argued April 6, 2023

Officially Released July 11, 2023

Trent A. LaLima, Hartford, with whom was Virginia M. Gillette, for the appellant (defendant).

Jonathan M. Sousa, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Anne Mahoney, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Cradle, Clark and Palmer, Js.

CLARK, J.

The defendant, Casey Liem Sullivan, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of unlawful restraint in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-96, sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) (2), attempt to commit sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) (2) and 53a-72a (a) (1), and sexual assault in the third degree in violation of § 53a-72a (a) (1). On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the prosecutor committed prosecutorial impropriety and deprived him of a fair trial when she made certain improper statements during closing arguments, and (2) his punishments stemming from his conviction of sexual assault in the third degree and sexual assault in the fourth degree violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy. We disagree with both claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. In January, 2017, K responded to a Craigslist ad for a basement apartment rental in the defendant's raised ranch home. K entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant for the apartment, which included a six month lease term, a $500 security deposit, and a monthly rent of $700. K had received a notice to quit from her former landlord for nonpayment of rent and liked that the terms of the lease agreement with the defendant were "loose" because she was in a "transitional period" in her life.

On March 29, 2017, K texted the defendant to let him know that her daughter, C, would be staying over that night.¹ C, who was then twenty years old, had recently gone through a difficult breakup with her boyfriend and needed a place to stay for the night as she prepared to move into a new apartment the following day.

On the evening of March 29, 2017, K went to band practice² at her bandmate M's house and left a key under the doormat so that C could enter the basement apartment after C finished her shift at work.³ C arrived that evening and stayed in her mother's apartment, where no one else was present. Sometime before 10 p.m., the defendant came downstairs and knocked on the basement door. After C opened the door, the defendant asked her if she needed anything and if she wanted to come upstairs to meet his dogs. C agreed to come upstairs. She followed the defendant up the stairs and proceeded to pet the defendant's dogs. The defendant then asked C if she wanted the Wi-Fi password to access his Internet. C accepted the password, after which the defendant approached her and hugged her. C did not hug him back and kept her arms at her side because she felt uncomfortable and did not like to be touched by strangers.⁴ She told the defendant that the interaction "was weird," and she proceeded to jump over the dog gate that was at the top of the basement stairs and returned to her mother's apartment downstairs.⁵

Approximately one-half hour later, the defendant again came downstairs to K's apartment where C was. He brought with him his cell phone where he had C's Instagram account visible on the screen. The defendant proceeded to show C her own photos from her account, commenting on her looks and telling her that she looked attractive. His comments made her feel uncomfortable, especially in light of the prior interaction that she had with the defendant that evening. But, to be polite, she thanked him. During this conversation, the defendant told her that he had an interest in sculpting and wanted to show her some sculptures in the garage that he had made. C, in an effort to be polite, followed the defendant to the doorway of the garage, where he proceeded to show her his sculptures and around the room, which contained a motorcycle and his dirt bikes. C did not enter the garage. Instead, she viewed the garage from the doorway.

After showing C the garage area, the defendant mentioned that he had more sculptures upstairs and invited C to see them. C agreed and followed the defendant upstairs. The defendant led C to his bedroom to show her a sculpture but, again, C remained in the doorway because she did not feel comfortable entering the room. At that point, the defendant told C that he had a projector in the bedroom and wanted to "Netflix and chill" with her. C said no because it was strange and that she did not know him like that. The defendant went to exit the bedroom, and C backed straight up against the wall in the hallway to give him space to walk by her. Instead of walking by C, who moved against the wall to let the defendant go by, the defendant walked toward her and put his hands on her hips. C stepped to the side and walked down the hallway away from the defendant and toward the dog gate.

C climbed over the dog gate and turned around when she reached the top step because she did not want her back to the defendant. The defendant had followed quickly behind her, grabbed her under her arms, and lifted her back over the gate, saying, "oh, you are so light, I could just pick you up." He then placed C on the couch in the living room and laid on top of her. While on the couch, the defendant put all of his weight on top of her and started kissing her neck. He then rubbed her breasts and genitals over her clothing. The defendant told C that she was "a bombshell," that he "couldn't pass up the opportunity," and that she was "being quarantined." C, who weighed significantly less than the defendant, was unable to move underneath him due to his weight. She did not put her arms around the defendant or kiss him back.

At some point, the defendant shifted his position on C, which freed C's hand to allow her to utilize her cell phone. While the defendant continued to kiss her neck and rub her genitals, C accessed the Facebook messenger application on her phone and sent "help me" to her mother. The defendant then shifted his position a second time, which allowed C to slide out from underneath him and off the couch. She told the defendant that she was expecting a phone call and proceeded to walk toward the dog gate.

The defendant followed behind C to the dog gate. When C reached the gate, she once again turned toward the defendant because she was scared and did not want her back to him. The defendant used his leg to pin her against the gate. He then undid his waistband, exposed his penis, grabbed C's free hand, and moved it toward his penis. C ripped her hand away and pushed the defendant. As C attempted to climb over the dog gate, the defendant tugged at her V-neck shirt and bra, exposing C's breasts. The defendant proceeded to kiss and lick one of C's exposed breasts and her neck. C was eventually able to get over the gate, after which she ran downstairs to her mother's apartment and locked the door behind her. As she was running down the stairs, she heard the defendant yell, "fuck" in what sounded to her to be a very aggravated tone.

While C was attempting to get away from the defendant, she missed a call from her mother, who, at that time, had left band practice and was on her way to the defendant's house in response to C's Facebook message. When she secured herself in her mother's apartment, C frantically called her mother, told her what the defendant had done, and asked her to get her out of the house. C also messaged "hurry" to her mother using the Facebook messenger application.⁶ When K arrived, C was exiting the house. K entered the entryway of the house and yelled up the stairs, but she did not see or hear the defendant. Her priority was getting C out of the house.

K drove her daughter back to M's house. On the way, K pulled into a parking lot to call the police because she did not want to call them in front of M and the other bandmates. K and C then drove to M's house and entered his basement. During the drive and in the basement, C was crying and trembling as she explained the details of the situation to her mother.

Less than one-half hour later, state troopers arrived at M's house. The state troopers spoke to C and K separately and took their written statements. C gave a statement to Trooper Kyle Cormier explaining, in detail, what had happened at the defendant's house, including that the defendant had licked and kissed her neck and breast. Cormier photographed the area of C's neck that she identified and swabbed it for forensic evidence. He also collected saliva from C's mouth so that the lab would have a "confirmatory sample" of C. Cormier did not swab C's breast, which the defendant had also licked, because he did not want to further victimize her. He also did not collect any clothing from C. C did not want to go to the hospital and refused any medical treatment.

After collecting evidence from C, Trooper Cormier went to the defendant's residence and took photographs of several rooms in the home.⁷ Cormier observed several items in the home that corroborated C's description, including a certain item on the coffee table, the couch in the living room, the dog gate, and the sculptures and projector in the bedroom.

State troopers arrested the defendant the next day. In September, 2017, an inspector collected a DNA sample from the defendant and later submitted it to the state forensic laboratory for comparative analysis. When the laboratory analyzed the samples collected from C's neck, it did not detect the presence of amylase, which is a protein found in human saliva. The negative result indicated that amylase either was not present or was present but was below a detectable level. When the same samples from the neck...