State v. Manini
| Decision Date | 17 July 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 12171,12171 |
| Citation | 659 A.2d 196,38 Conn.App. 100 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Rick MANINI. |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Sheila Huddleston, Sp. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Marjorie Allen Dauster, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was Michael Dearington, State's Atty., and David Gold, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before O'CONNELL, SCHALLER and FREEDMAN, JJ.
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70(a)(1) 1 and two counts of sexual assault in the third degree in violation of § 53a-72a(1). 2 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the trial court improperly excluded evidence of the victim's prior claims of sexual assault pursuant to Connecticut's rape shield statute, General Statutes § 54-86f. 3 The defendant also claims that the trial court improperly denied his request to order the victim to undergo an independent psychiatric examination, and permitted the prosecution to make a Secondino argument; see Secondino v. New Haven Gas Co., 147 Conn. 672, 165 A.2d 598 (1960); without a proper foundation or advance permission from the court. 4 We reverse the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. The victim, L, suffered from schizophrenia since at least 1978, and had been hospitalized for acute psychotic episodes in 1979, 1983, and 1984. She had not been hospitalized since 1984, but had been taking a high dosage of an antipsychotic medication, prolixin. She married in September, 1983, and had a daughter in September, 1984.
In 1989, L took a part-time job at an Ames department store at Centennial Plaza in Meriden. L met the defendant at Ames, where he did plainclothes security work. L's first physical contact with the defendant occurred in May, 1990. In a conversation with the defendant in the employee's lounge, she agreed to go out for coffee with him. At the end of their conversation, the defendant grabbed and kissed her. She stepped back and told him that she "could not do this," and that she was interested only in having coffee with him. She subsequently canceled the plans to have coffee with the defendant.
Later that month, on May 13, 1990, the defendant told L to go up to the security office to pick up some shoes that needed to be reshelved. While she was alone in the office with the defendant, he began rubbing against her. His hands rubbed her buttocks and shoulders. He pulled down his elastic waistband pants and exposed his penis. L told him to "put that away." He laughed at her and said, "You're going to eat me." The defendant moved toward L and, as she tried to evade him, he put his hand on the back of her head, pulled her toward him and pushed his penis into her mouth. Ultimately, he ejaculated onto her smock. L left the room and did not tell anyone about the incident because she was afraid no one would believe her.
L lost her job when the store closed in the summer of 1990. In September, 1990, she applied for a job at an Ames store in Meriden, and was hired as a "trial manager" in the jewelry department. The defendant was also working at that store. On September 11, 1990, the defendant told L that he needed to talk with her during her break about management issues. At her break, L went into the security office. The defendant told L that there had been complaints that she had left her department unattended. He told her she had to listen to her managers. The defendant then locked the door and pulled his pants down. She saw that he was wearing white underwear with red lettering. The defendant said, "Kiss me, baby," and began to kiss her. He put his hands all over her, touching her private parts. L went to the door and tried to unlock it; the defendant said, "I'll get the door, sweetie." He opened the door and said, "Maybe next time I'll get you." She said she was going to report him for "job abuse" and left the office.
Immediately after L had left his office, the defendant spoke with Patricia Barnis, an Ames assistant manager. He told her that L was "crazy" and that she was "making up a lot of stories." Barnis said that the defendant asked her later that day "how much would it cost him" for her to keep quiet about having seen L leave his office.
The defendant followed L to the office of John Carlson, the store manager. L told Carlson about the alleged assault. She also told him that the defendant had previously assaulted her in the Centennial Plaza store, where he had forced her to have oral sex with him. The defendant denied the allegations to Carlson. Carlson called Jeff Hanlon, the district security manager, to come to the store to investigate L's allegations. L and the defendant each wrote a statement and spoke with Hanlon.
L told her husband about these events, including those occurring at the Centennial Plaza store. Her husband called the police. A statement was taken, and the next day Detective Ted Standish of the Meriden police department took an additional statement from L in her husband's presence. Standish secured a warrant for the defendant's arrest on September 14.
The defendant voluntarily went to the police station that same day. Standish informed the defendant of his Miranda rights and secured his waiver. He suggested that the defendant might want to give a statement because L had provided a substantial amount of detail, including the color of the defendant's underwear. The defendant asked what she had said, and Standish, using an interviewing technique, answered that she had said his underwear was bright yellow. The defendant said that he had been wearing underwear that was "white with red lines."
The defendant's testimony concerning the events of September 11, 1990, differed substantially from that of L. He said that after he mentioned the complaints about L's work, she had "changed facial expressions" and said that her husband often asked her to perform fellatio. The defendant testified that he ended the conversation at that point and went to the employee lounge to get a cup of coffee. He saw L outside the lounge, holding her hand to her hair. She said, "Rick, this fucking job is getting to my head and I want to quit and you're going to be fired." He followed her upstairs as she went to talk to Carlson.
The defendant denied that he had ever had sex or sexual contact with L at the Centennial Plaza store. He said that he had spoken with Carlson earlier in the day because the service desk personnel had complained that L was leaving the jewelry department unattended. Carlson, who was extremely busy that day, did not recall the conversation, but L had seen the defendant talking with Carlson before he spoke to her.
The defendant agreed that he had told Barnis that L had accused him of forcing her to have sex, but recalled that the conversation had taken place after L had spoken to Carlson, not before. He denied that he offered Barnis money to keep quiet.
The defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his motion to introduce evidence of L's prior claims of rape pursuant to Connecticut's rape shield statute, General Statutes § 54-86f, thereby denying the defendant his right of confrontation as protected by the sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. We agree.
For a defendant to introduce evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct, the proffered evidence must fall into one of the four delineated exceptions provided by the rape shield statute. The evidence is admissible only after a hearing on a motion to offer such evidence containing an offer of proof. See General Statutes § 54-86f. We note that, in this case, the defendant did not frame his request in language employing the words "move" or "motion." The record is clear, however, that he was seeking permission to offer the type of evidence covered by § 54-86f. The remarks of both the state and the trial court indicated their understanding that the defendant's request was a motion under that section. 5 We have often stated that "we will not exalt form over substance"; State v. Rosedom, 34 Conn.App. 141, 143, 640 A.2d 634 (1994); Wilton v. McGovern, 33 Conn.App. 517, 521, 636 A.2d 870, cert. denied, 228 Conn. 929, 640 A.2d 116 (1994); Connecticut National Bank v. Browder, 30 Conn.App. 776, 779, 622 A.2d 588 (1993); Tolland Bank v. Larson, 28 Conn.App. 332, 337, 610 A.2d 720 (1992); and we will not do so where it was clear to all parties involved that a motion was being made. Because the record reveals that both parties and the trial court unmistakably understood the request at issue to be a motion under § 54-86f, we will proceed on that basis.
The defendant claimed that the proffered evidence came within either the second or fourth exception, that it was "offered by the defendant on the issue of credibility of the victim," or "otherwise so relevant and material to a critical issue in the case that excluding it would violate the defendant's constitutional rights." General Statutes § 54-86f(2) and (4). The issue arose at trial while the defendant was in the process of attempting to impeach L's credibility, attacking her ability to perceive, recollect, and report reality accurately. The defendant was questioning L about her 1991 medical records, including inquiries into delusions and hallucinations of a highly sexualized nature that the records indicated the victim had experienced. The jury was excused and the defendant told the trial court that he wanted to cross-examine L about the prior claims of rape contained in the medical records. 6 The defendant presented a compelling argument based on the 1991 medical records, which indicated that she had made two prior claims of rape and had experienced...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Sullivan
...v. Barrett, 43 Conn.App. 667, 671-73, 685 A.2d 677 (1996), cert. denied, 240 Conn. 923, 692 A.2d 819 (1997); State v. Manini, 38 Conn.App. 100, 106-108, 659 A.2d 196 (1995), cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 99 (1995). Under § 54-86f (4), such evidence is admissible if it is "so relevan......
-
State v. Martinez
...to an evidentiary hearing involving the victim's testimony is ... subject to the discretion of the trial court." State v. Manini, 38 Conn.App. 100, 111, 659 A.2d 196, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 99 (1995). "In determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reason......
-
State v. Rolon
...470; see, e.g., Chambers v. Mississippi, supra, 410 U.S. 284; State v. Mastropetre, supra, 175 Conn. 521; see also State v. Manini, 38 Conn. App. 100, 113-14, 659 A.2d 196, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 99 (1995). In every criminal case, the defendant has an important interest in be......
-
State v. Morant
...be taken only upon "compelling reasons." State v. Dabkowski, 199 Conn. 193, 197-98 n. 5, 506 A.2d 118 (1986); see State v. Manini, 38 Conn.App. 100, 119, 659 A.2d 196, cert. denied, 234 Conn. 920, 661 A.2d 99 (1995). "In State v. Dabkowski, [supra, at 193, 506 A.2d 118] ... [we] ... rejecte......