Judicial District of Stamford


      Criminal; Sexual Assault; Whether Exclusion of Defense Evidence denied Defendant his Constitutional Rights to Present a Defense, to Confrontation and to Due Process. In 2007, the defendant was accused of having sexually assaulted the minor daughter of his former girlfriend several years earlier.  At his trial, the defendant sought to present testimony from the child’s pediatrician regarding statements the child had made to her during two examinations in August, 2004.  In an offer of proof, the pediatrician testified that, on August 2, 2004, the child denied having been sexually active with anyone.  The doctor further testified that on August 9, 2004, the child told her that she had had sexual intercourse with a fourteen year old boy and that no adult had touched her.  Subsequently, the doctor testified before the jury regarding the statement made at the August 2, 2004 interview only.  Thereafter, the defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree sexual assault and one count of risk of injury.  On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court improperly prohibited him from eliciting any evidence from the doctor about what the child had said at the August 9, 2004 visit.  He asserts that evidence of the child's inconsistent statements was admissible under both the exceptions to the rape shield statute, General Statutes §§ 54-86f (2) and (4), and the Connecticut Code of Evidence, §§ 4-11 (2) and (4), because the evidence was offered to impeach the child's credibility.  He also maintains that the statements were admissible under the medical treatment exception to the hearsay rule.  The defendant argues that the court's ruling violated his constitutional rights to present a defense, to confront the witnesses against him and to due process and that the ruling constituted an abuse of discretion.