State v. Jacobson
Decision Date | 21 August 2007 |
Docket Number | No. 17415.,17415. |
Citation | 283 Conn. 618,930 A.2d 628 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Scott JACOBSON. |
Frederick W. Fawcett, supervisory assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, and Cornelius P. Kelly, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
BORDEN, NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER and ZARELLA, Js.*
A jury found the defendant, Scott Jacobson, guilty of nine counts of sexual misconduct involving two young male victims.1 As to the first victim, M, the jury found the defendant guilty of two counts of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(2)2 and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53-21(a)(2).3 As to the second victim, B, the jury found the defendant guilty of one count of attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-70(a)(2) and 53a-49(a)(2),4 one count of sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a(a)(1)(A),5 and three counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 53-21(2).6 The trial court rendered judgments in accordance with the jury verdicts,7 from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the state to introduce into evidence (1) testimony concerning the defendant's alleged prior misconduct involving a third young male, (2) certain photographs of young children that had been found in the defendant's possession, and (3) testimony regarding a ziplock bag of hair that also had been found in the defendant's possession. See State v. Jacobson, 87 Conn.App. 440, 443, 866 A.2d 678 (2005).
Although the Appellate Court agreed with each of the defendant's claims of evidentiary impropriety; id., at 449, 451, 454, 866 A.2d 678; it also concluded that those improprieties were harmless and, therefore, that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial.8 See id., at 450, 451, 456, 866 A.2d 678. We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issues: "Did the Appellate Court properly determine that the improper introduction of fifty-three photographs, testimony regarding a ziplock bag of hair and testimony regarding the defendant's prior misconduct constituted harmless error?" State v. Jacobson, 273 Conn. 928, 873 A.2d 999 (2005). With respect to the testimony concerning the defendant's prior misconduct, we conclude that, contrary to the determination of the Appellate Court, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the state to present that testimony. We further conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the admission of the photographs and the testimony regarding the ziplock bag of hair was harmless error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found. "In 1995, as [the] coach of a youth ice hockey team, the defendant met seven year old B, whose older brother was a member of the team, and B's mother. The defendant befriended B's mother, who was having marital difficulties at the time, offering to drive her son to Greenwich for hockey practices and games. She welcomed the help and even let B, who was not a team member, tag along for the rides. During that time, the defendant expressed a special interest in B, encouraging him to play hockey, helping him with his schoolwork and letting him sleep at his home a few nights a week. They became so close that the defendant became B's godfather.
State v. Jacobson, supra, 87 Conn.App. at 443-46, 866 A.2d 678. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant raised several claims of evidentiary impropriety. Specifically, the defendant claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in permitting the state to (1) present testimony about certain alleged prior misconduct by the defendant involving a third boy, (2) introduce into evidence fifty-nine photographs, almost all of which depicted young boys, that M's mother had found in the defendant's briefcase, and (3) adduce testimony about a ziplock bag of hair that M's mother also had found in the defendant's briefcase. With the exception of six of the photographs that depicted M and B, the Appellate Court agreed with the defendant that the trial court should not have permitted the state to present any of the challenged evidence. The Appellate Court also concluded, however, that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial because the improper admission of that evidence was harmless.
On appeal to this court upon our grant of certification, the defendant maintains that he is entitled to a new trial because, contrary to the determination of the Appellate Court, the trial court's evidentiary rulings constituted harmful error.9 The state contends, first, that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in allowing the state to adduce testimony regarding the defendant's prior misconduct. Alternatively, the state maintains that, even if the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court improperly had failed to exclude that prior misconduct evidence, the Appellate Court also correctly concluded that the admission of that testimony constituted harmless error. The state further maintains that the Appellate Court correctly concluded that the admission of the photographic evidence and the testimony concerning the bag of hair, although improper, was harmless.10 We agree with the state that the Appellate Court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State Conn. v. Johnson
...(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jacobson, 87 Conn. App. 440, 463, 866 A.2d 678 (2005), aff'd, 283 Conn. 618, 930 A.2d 628 (2007). In the present case, the trial court provided the following instructions on the requirement that the deathmust occur "in the cour......
-
Morris v. State, PD–0796–10.
...abuse case); Wease v. State, 170 P.3d 94, 114, 116 (Wyo.2007) (referring to “grooming” process). 61. State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618, 628–29, 633–38, 930 A.2d 628, 635–36, 638–40 (2007); State v. Truman, 150 Idaho 714, 249 P.3d 1169, 1177–78 (Idaho App.2010) (Evidence of prior acts by defe......
- State v. Devon D.
-
State v. Williams
...has decided it based on improper or irrelevant factors.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618, 626–27, 930 A.2d 628 (2007). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion by precluding Penrod's testimony regarding eyewitness identi......
-
Developments in Connecticut Criminal Law: 2007
...common plan or scheme if tried separately; uncharged misconduct evidence from a third person also properly admitted); State v. Jacobson, 283 Conn. 618, 627-40 (2007) (affirmed multiple convictions of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child where uncharged misconduct evidence relating t......