State v. Spigarolo

556 A.2d 112 (1989)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was charged with several criminal offenses in connection with allegations that he had sexually abused his girlfriend's children, B, a six-year-old male, and G, a nine-year-old female. Between August and December of 1984, D with the assistance of the victims' mother, F, engaged in numerous sexual activities with the victims. These activities took place at an apartment in Hamden, where the victims lived with their mother. D, F's boyfriend, often visited the apartment and spent the night there during that period. The incidents first came to light in October 1984, when school officials observed that B had been 'acting out' in sexually inappropriate behavior. From December 1984, through August 1985, the victims disclosed the incidents in a series of interviews with social workers and police, and in discussions with the victims’ father and his present wife, with whom the victims were placed in temporary custody in January 1985. The disclosures by the victims were at times incomplete and inconsistent, and on one occasion in December 1985, victim G recanted previous statements and said that no sexual activity between herself and the defendant had taken place. Both G and B stated at various times that they had been afraid to report the incidents for fear of reprisal from the defendant or their mother. In addition, a medical test performed on G in December 1984, disclosed the presence of gonorrhea in her throat. Although a subsequent test performed one week later produced a negative result, the state presented testimony tending to show that the latter test result did not invalidate the results of the former test. The videotaped testimony of both B and G, which had been taken prior to trial outside the defendant's physical presence was admitted into evidence at the trial. To counter or explain the inconsistencies in the testimony from the children, P offered the testimony of Brenda Woods, a social worker employed by Yale-New Haven Hospital. Woods was permitted to testify on direct examination that it is not unusual for alleged abuse victims to give apparently inconsistent stories. She testified: 'It might sound like the child is being inconsistent, because they may give parts of the story initially, they may give part of the story then later more of it will come out as they begin to be able to talk about it more.' D contends that Woods was not qualified to testify as she did and that the admission of her testimony violated his constitutional right to a jury trial because it usurped the jury's function of assessing the credibility of witnesses. D was convicted and appealed.