State of Connecticut v. Adam P.

Bridgeport, Connecticut criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with seven counts of the crime of sexual assault in the first degree and eight counts of the crime of risk of injury to a child,



From 2005 to 2013, the defendant was in a romantic relationship with the victims' mother, Q. During most of that time, the defendant lived with Q, D, and T, first in Bridgeport, and then in Stratford. He did not live with them during summers, when the victims stayed with extended family in South Carolina, or for ten months in 2010, when Q was evicted from her Stratford apartment.





* * *



Legal issue Can a jury be instructed not to consider a victim's delayed reporting of sexual abuse when evaluating the victim's credibility in a trial?

Headnote



CRIMINAL LAW. JURY INSTRUCTIONS AND DUE PROCESS. The appeal addresses whether a jury instruction precluding consideration of delayed reporting by victims undermines credibility assessments and intrudes on due process rights, potentially affecting the fairness in conviction for sexual assault and risk of injury to a child. The court overruled a previous decision on instructing juries about delayed reporting, emphasizing the need for precise parameters on using such information in credibility evaluations.



CRIMINAL LAW. EVIDENCE AND PROBATIVE VALUE. The case discusses the admissibility of statements made by the defendant as party opponent evidence to establish grooming behavior in child sexual assault cases. It was held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion given the probative value of such statements compared to the danger of unfair prejudice when properly limited by jury instructions.



Key Phrases Sexual assault allegations. Risk of injury to a child. Delayed reporting. Jury instruction error. Credibility assessment.

Affirmed