Background
A jury convicted Asbel R. of first-degree sexual assault, three counts of second-degree sexual assault, fourth-degree sexual assault, and three counts of risk of injury to a child. The charges concerned sexual abuse of his longtime girlfriend’s daughter, beginning when the victim was about eight and continuing through her early teens in East Windsor, Windsor Locks, and South Windsor.
At trial, the defense introduced hospital records to challenge the victim’s account of when the most recent assault occurred. The state also introduced records from a child-abuse medical examination. Both sets of records were admitted as full exhibits without a requested limitation. The defendant also sought a specific unanimity instruction for each risk-of-injury count, which were based on multiple incidents occurring over stated periods and in separate locations.
The Court’s Holding
The Appellate Court affirmed. It held that the trial court properly instructed jurors that statements the victim made to medical professionals while seeking treatment could be considered for their content if the jurors believed them. Because the records were admitted without objection or a limiting instruction, they were substantive evidence rather than evidence usable solely for impeachment.
The court also held that no specific unanimity instruction was required for the risk-of-injury counts. Although each count rested on multiple incidents, Connecticut law permits risk of injury to a child to be charged as a continuing course of conduct. Each count concerned one defendant, one victim, a specified time period, and a continuing objective to touch the victim sexually and indecently; thus, the counts were not duplicitous.
Key Takeaways
- Medical records admitted without a limiting purpose may be considered as substantive evidence.
- A court generally has no sua sponte duty to give a limiting instruction.
- Risk-of-injury charges may allege a continuing course of conduct and need not receive a specific unanimity instruction on each underlying act.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the importance of requesting a contemporaneous limitation when evidence is offered for impeachment or another restricted purpose. Once admitted without limitation, otherwise disputed evidence may be used for its substantive persuasive value.
It also applies State v. Douglas C. to sustained child-sex-abuse allegations, confirming that multiple acts can support a single risk-of-injury count when charged and proved as a continuing course of conduct.