State v. Juan A. G.-P.

*********************************************** The “officially released” date that appears near the be- ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub- lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be- ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica- tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. *********************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JUAN A. G.-P.* (SC 20164) Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D’Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Alexander and Keller, Js. Syllabus Convicted of aggravated sexual assault of a minor and risk of injury to a child in connection with his alleged sexual abuse of his stepdaughter, J, and stepniece, B, and his alleged conduct in showing them pornographic videos on an iPad, the defendant appealed to this court. Following the disclosure of the sexual abuse, J and B were interviewed by a child forensic interviewer and physically examined by a pediatrician. The physical examinations revealed no signs of sexual abuse. Prior to trial, the defendant sought the disclosure of J’s and B’s psychiatric records and filed a motion seeking an in camera review. During a hearing on the defendant’s motion, the guardian ad litem for J and B indicated that she had reviewed the records, that she was not opposed to the court’s reviewing them, and that J’s records predated the disclosures of the sexual abuse by nearly three years, whereas B’s records were more recent. At trial, C and D, who are sisters and the mothers of J and B, respectively, testified for the state. The defense requested permission to cross-examine C and D about their applications for U visas, which allow eligible, undocumented immigrants who are the victims of a crime to lawfully remain in the United States if they assist in the investigation and prosecution of the crime. Defense counsel specifically sought to use this information to show that both witnesses had a personal interest in the outcome of the case. After a proffer outside the presence of the jury, during which defense counsel questioned C and D, the trial court denied the request, concluding that counsel had failed to establish a nexus between the U visa applications and any possible interest that C and D might have had …

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals