Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Samuel U.
November 28, 2023348 Conn. 304
Summary
The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that the state's allegedly inadequate notice of uncharged sexual misconduct did not present a constitutional due process claim reviewable under the applicable unpreserved-error framework. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the defendant's daughter's testimony because the prior misconduct was sufficiently proximate when the incarceration period was excluded, and the incidents involved similar conduct and victims. The court concluded that the evidence was relevant and not unfairly prejudicial.