Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Samuel U.
November 28, 2023348 Conn. 304
Summary
The concurring opinion agrees that the defendant's unpreserved challenge to notice of prior sexual misconduct evidence did not establish a constitutional violation and that admitting the evidence was within the trial court's discretion. It emphasizes, however, that uncharged sexual misconduct evidence presents an exceptional risk of unfair prejudice and urges adoption of a rule requiring timely, accurate, and specific notice. The concurrence also notes that the notice in this case omitted important identifying and testimonial details, although those deficiencies did not require exclusion under existing law.