State of Connecticut v. Sushil Gupta — Palmer, J., concurring

Summary

Palmer, J., concurred in the result that joinder of the three sexual-assault cases was improper, but disagreed with the majority's emphasis on the relative severity of the defendant's conduct. He reasoned that severance was required because the defendant could plausibly characterize his conduct toward J and D as medically legitimate, while his conduct toward M was indefensible, making the evidence insufficiently cross-admissible and unduly prejudicial. He also agreed that exclusion of the videotapes was improper and would additionally have found exclusion of medical-treatise excerpts improper. Rogers, C. J., dissenting, would have upheld the joinder, treated the videotape error as harmless, and reversed the judgment below.