SC20951 – State v. Lazaro C.-D. ("The defendant, Lazaro C.-D., appeals
directly to this court from his conviction, following a
jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation
of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) and risk of injury
to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a)
(2). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court
incorrectly (1) denied his motion to suppress statements he had made to New Britain police detectives
because he was in custody at the time but had not been
advised of his Miranda rights, (2) determined that the
victim’s statements to her mother, A, on the evening of
the sexual assault were admissible under the excited
utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, and (3)
limited the testimony of the defendant’s expert witness
regarding the verification processes applicable for U
visa applications and the options a person who has
overstayed a tourist visa has for remaining legally in
the United States. The defendant also asks this court
to review in camera nondisclosed, confidential material
from the personnel file of one of the detectives who
testified at the hearing on the defendant’s motion to
suppress for the purpose of determining whether the
file contains any material that was required to be disclosed to the defense pursuant to Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S. Ct. 763, 31 L. Ed. 2d 104
(1972). We affirm the trial court’s judgment.")
SC20858 – State v. Bester ("The defendant, Damond Bester, appeals
directly to this court from the judgment of conviction,
rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-54a (a), and, after a trial to the
court, of criminal possession of a firearm in violation
of General Statutes § 53a-217 (a) (1). The defendant
raises three unpreserved claims: (1) his right to confrontation under the sixth and fourteenth amendments to
the United States constitution was violated when the
state’s gunshot residue expert relied on the data and
notes of a nontestifying state analyst who had performed the gunshot residue test but did not testify at
trial, (2) his right to confrontation was violated when
the prosecutor, during cross-examination of the defendant, elicited testimonial hearsay statements made by
the defendant’s girlfriend and cousin, and (3) the prosecutor’s questions to the defendant on cross-examination
improperly introduced into evidence facts outside of
the record in violation of his due process right to a fair
trial under the fourteenth amendment to the United
States constitution. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.")
SC20899– State v. Giovanni D. ("In this appeal, we clarify the standard for the admissibility of statements made by a child
during a forensic interview under the medical diagnosis
and treatment exception to the hearsay rule set forth in
§ 8-3 (5) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence (medical
treatment exception). The defendant, Giovanni D., appeals
from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury
trial, of various sexual offenses against the minor victim, J. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial
court abused its discretion in (1) admitting into evidence certain statements made by J to a forensic interviewer under the medical treatment exception, and (2)
denying his request for a special child witness credibility instruction. Although we agree with the defendant’s
first claim that the trial court abused its discretion in
admitting certain statements under the medical treatment exception, we conclude that the error was harmless. We are not persuaded by his second claim.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction.")