State v. Bronson
779 A.2d 95, 258 Conn. 42, 2001 Conn. LEXIS 362 (2001)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a child victim's ability to testify reliably in the defendant's presence is unexpectedly called into question mid-trial, fundamental fairness and the defendant's constitutional right of confrontation require the trial court to grant a defense motion for an expert examination of the child.
Facts:
- From September to November 1994, John Bronson, Sr. and his wife regularly cared for their four-year-old granddaughter, M.
- On or about November 10, 1994, after picking M up from the grandparents' house, M's mother noticed that the child's vaginal area was red and puffy.
- When her mother asked what happened, M stated that Bronson had touched her 'pee-pee'.
- On November 21, 1994, a physician examined M and found her vaginal area to be normal, but noted this finding was not inconsistent with M's statement.
- The next day, during a videotaped interview at a child abuse diagnostic center, M stated that Bronson had touched her 'pee-pee' with his hand while they were on a couch.
- Prior to trial, the state relied on an assessment by M's treating therapist, who opined that M was emotionally capable of testifying in open court in Bronson's presence.
- During direct examination at trial, when the prosecutor began to question M about the alleged sexual assault, M started to cry and was removed from the courtroom, unable to continue her testimony.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Connecticut prosecuted John Bronson, Sr. in a state trial court.
- A jury found Bronson guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree and risk of injury to a child.
- Bronson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Connecticut Appellate Court.
- The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Bronson, as petitioner, successfully petitioned for certification to appeal to the Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by denying a defendant's motion for an expert examination of a child victim when the child, previously assessed by a therapist as capable of testifying in court, has an emotional breakdown on the witness stand, thereby raising questions about her ability to testify reliably in the defendant's presence?
Opinions:
Majority - Sullivan, C. J.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion by denying a defendant's motion for an expert examination under these circumstances. The defendant's right to a meaningful hearing on the issue of testimonial reliability, grounded in the constitutional right of confrontation, requires such an examination when a child witness's ability to testify reliably becomes uncertain. The court reasoned that the primary focus of an inquiry into allowing alternative testimony methods must be on the reliability of the testimony, not the potential trauma to the witness. Citing its precedent in State v. Marquis, the court affirmed that fundamental fairness may require an expert examination to ensure a meaningful hearing. In this case, M's breakdown directly contradicted a prior expert assessment that she could testify in the defendant's presence. The subsequent impromptu hearing relied on lay testimony from M's father and a victim's advocate, who were focused on the child's emotional needs rather than the legal standard of testimonial reliability. This lay testimony was insufficient to rebut the prior expert opinion, creating a situation where the defendant was entitled to have a new expert appointed to assess M's ability to testify reliably. The court presumed the denial caused harm, as it would be impossible for the defendant to prove after the fact what an expert would have concluded.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural safeguards necessary to protect a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confrontation when the reliability of a child witness is at issue. It clarifies that a sudden, unexpected change in a child's ability to testify mid-trial is a significant event that can trigger the right to a new expert evaluation, even if a prior assessment exists. The ruling establishes that lay observations about a child's emotional distress are not a sufficient substitute for an expert's opinion on testimonial reliability in a formal hearing. This precedent effectively raises the bar for the state when seeking to use alternative testimony methods, compelling trial courts to grant defense requests for expert input in these specific circumstances to ensure the constitutionality of the proceedings.
