State v. George A.
In the 2008 case of State v. DeJesus, the Supreme Court concluded that "evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct is admissible only if it is relevant to prove that a defendant had a propensity or a tendency to engage in the type of aberrant and compulsive criminal sexual behavior with which he or she [was] charged." In two cases consolidated for a court trial concerning the defendant's daughter from the age of nine to 14, George A. was convicted on counts of sexual assault in the first degree, risk of injury to a child and promoting a minor in an obscene performance. George A. appealed raising multiple claims. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. Sufficient evidence was found to sustain the trial court's finding that the defendant was guilty of promoting a minor in an obscene performance in violation of C.G.S. §53a-196b(a). Videos depicting the victim crushing mice with her bare feet, although repulsive, did not depict a "prohibited sexual act" as defined by C.G.S. §53a-193(3). But, the court reasonably could have found that the victim's testimony, independent of the videos, including describing how the defendant would make her "touch [her] private parts with mice," satisfied the crime's elements and the videos merely served as corroboration of some activities described. Additionally, the admission of improper opinion evidence by the state's expert was not plain error requiring reversal. Further, the court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence of uncharged sexual misconduct. K's testimony that the defendant had sexual contact with her using mice when she was aged 10 to 14, and a video of her engaging in sexual activities with mice at his direction, was sufficiently similar, despite a four year lapse and lack of family relationship, to be admitted as propensity evidence under DeJesus. Despite the age dissimilarity, the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting misconduct evidence concerning E, the victim's mother and defendant's wife, consisting of a video of the defendant directing E to crush baby mice and use them on herself in a sexual manner. Both the victim and E were females, residing in the defendant's household, whom he directed to engage in crushing activities so sexually unique as to constitute a virtual "signature" of his propensities to engage therein.