concluding that court did not violate defendant’s right to confront witnesses by excluding evidence of prior sexual conduct when record did not support defendant’s claim that victims falsely accused him of assaults perpetrated by others in order to shield others from harm where victims disclosed other perpe- trators to police, and other perpetrators had been con- victed at time of defendant’s trial
How later courts described this case
- concluding that court did not violate defendant’s right to confront witnesses by excluding evidence of prior sexual conduct when record did not support defendant’s claim that victims falsely accused him of assaults perpetrated by others in order to shield others from harm where victims disclosed other perpe- trators to police, and other perpetrators had been con- victed at time of defendant’s trial
- requiring, to prevail on plain error claim, that defendant, in addition to satisfying Boles standard, show that purported error more probably than not misled jury into improper conviction
- observing that in context of victim similarity, familial type relationship between defendant and victim's family gave him access to victim
- examining evidence to determine that convictions for sexual assault in first and second degree arose from separate acts or transactions
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by State v. Rolon, 257 Conn. 156 (2001)
Kulmac is distinguishable from the present case, however.
The opinion
Berdon, J.,
dissenting. I agree with Justice Katz’ well reasoned dissent concerning parts III and VIII of the majority opinion. Although the defendant raises other claims that trouble me, I need not reach them, because the improper admission of the uncharged misconduct evidence would require a new trial on all counts.