Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Mark T. — concurring in part and dissenting in part
June 7, 2021339 Conn. 225
Summary
This concurrence in part and dissent in part would uphold the trial court's exclusion of additional evidence concerning the child's behavioral history and treatment because its limited probative value was outweighed by the child's privacy interests. It further concludes that, even assuming evidentiary error, the defendant failed to demonstrate harmfulness because he made no offer of proof and never identified the excluded testimony. The dissenting judges would therefore reject a new trial.