Background
After a jury trial, Evans E. was convicted of two counts of second-degree sexual assault, seven counts of risk of injury to a child, and one count of fourth-degree sexual assault. The case rested principally on the complainant J’s account that the defendant, her mother’s partner and a father figure in the household, sexually abused her over several years. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of forty years, suspended after eighteen years, followed by fifteen years of probation.
The defense challenged J’s credibility, including her history of lying. The prosecutor asked J’s mother whether she believed J, asked the investigating detective whether he would have sought an arrest warrant if he did not believe J, and asked the forensic interviewer whether she found J credible and why. In closing and rebuttal, the prosecutor highlighted the detective’s and interviewer’s credibility assessments and their professional experience.
The Court’s Holding
The Connecticut Appellate Court reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial. It held that the prosecutor improperly elicited testimony from three witnesses about whether J was credible and improperly emphasized that testimony in closing argument. Credibility determinations belong to the jury, and the state could not circumvent that rule by obtaining opinions that J’s allegations were believable.
Applying the factors from State v. Williams, the court concluded that the cumulative improprieties deprived the defendant of a fair trial. Although the defense’s attacks on J’s credibility partly invited efforts to rehabilitate her, they did not permit direct vouching. The improprieties were frequent, central to a case dependent on J’s credibility, and reinforced in the prosecutor’s final rebuttal; no curative measures were taken, and the state’s case lacked physical evidence.
Key Takeaways
- Witnesses may not opine that another witness or complainant is credible.
- A prosecutor may not bolster improper credibility testimony by stressing witnesses’ training and experience in closing argument.
- Even without trial objections, cumulative prosecutorial impropriety can require reversal when it may have substantially swayed the verdict.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that sexual-assault prosecutions remain subject to the rule that jurors alone decide a complainant’s credibility. Investigators, family members, and forensic interviewers may provide admissible factual testimony, but they cannot be used as credibility guarantors.
The ruling also illustrates the particular risk of improper vouching in cases with no physical evidence and a credibility-centered defense.