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.")