State v. Adam P.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, overruling the prior modification of Connecticut’s constancy of accusation doctrine and restoring the rule that jurors may consider delayed reporting when evaluating a sexual assault victim’s credibility. It held that the challenged instruction was nonconstitutional and harmless because the charge as a whole preserved the jury’s ability to assess credibility, the defense primarily relied on other grounds, and the evidence was strong. The court also held that admitting testimony about the defendant’s reference to playing the same sexual games with his daughter was not an abuse of discretion because the testimony was probative of grooming and was accompanied by limiting instructions.