November 28, 2017
J. Steele, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Hanna, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Ann P.
Lawlor, senior assistant state's attorney, for the
Alvord, Bright and Sullivan, Js.
defendant, Anibal Bobe, appeals from the judgment of
conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sexual assault in
the second degree in violation of General Statutes §
53a-71 (a) (1), and of injury to a child in violation of
General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), and risk of injury to
a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the
defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted
into evidence hearsay and double hearsay through the
testimony of the victim. We conclude that any claimed error was
harmless and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial
basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury reasonably
could have found the following facts. In July, 2012, the male
victim, then fourteen years old, and his family were
homeless. The victim's mother was acquainted with the
defendant, who allowed them to live in his one bedroom
apartment with him. The defendant helped his landlord with
building maintenance and had access to the building's
attic and vacant apartments in the building that required
work. The defendant asked the victim's mother if the
victim could help him paint a neighboring vacant apartment.
That apartment had painting mats down on the floor. The
defendant provided the victim with a brown bottle of liquor
that the victim described as ‘‘[tasting]
horrible.'' The defendant and the victim took off each
other's clothes. The victim put his mouth on the
defendant's penis and performed oral sex until the
defendant ejaculated on the floor, and the defendant did the
same to the victim.
another occasion, the defendant invited the victim to come up
to the attic, where there was a bed, to have
‘‘sweaty sex.'' The victim went into the
attic with the defendant, and they took off each other's
clothes and performed oral sex on each other. The defendant
‘‘put the tip of his [penis] in [the victim's
anus], but it didn't go all the way in because [the
victim] . . . clenched up . . . and . . . [pushed] away
because it . . . [hurt].'' Another time in the vacant
apartment, the defendant asked the victim to
‘‘turn over so that he [could] stick it
in.'' The victim did not want to engage in anal sex,
but the defendant told him that ‘‘[it was]
ok'' and fully penetrated the victim's anus. The
victim described it as a ‘‘painful, ''
‘‘awful feeling.'' The victim stated that
when the defendant finished it felt like the defendant had
‘‘[ejaculated] inside [of him].'' The
defendant never used a condom during any of the assaults.
Afterward, the victim went to the bathroom and saw blood in
his underwear. The victim told the defendant, but the
defendant ‘‘tried to deny it and say that . . .
it wasn't blood.'' The victim was scared, and he
threw away the bloody underwear.
victim engaged in oral sex with the defendant approximately
two other times, and the defendant attempted to engage in
anal sex with the victim on one other occasion. The defendant
told the victim multiple times ‘‘not to tell
anyone because [they] would both get in trouble.''
Initially, the victim did not tell anyone about the assaults
because he ‘‘was scared and . . . [did not] know
what was going to happen'' or ‘‘what
anybody would think.'' The victim was
‘‘very concerned'' about whether his
family would be able to stay in the defendant's
apartment. Later that month, the landlord discovered that the
victim's family was living in the defendant's
apartment and asked them to leave. In the spring of 2013, the
victim told his stepbrother the defendant's name and
‘‘exactly what happened from the beginning . . .
to the end.'' The victim then told his father and
stepmother, who contacted the Bridgeport Police Department.
state subsequently charged the defendant with sexual assault
in the second degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a
child. A three day jury trial commenced on July 6, 2016, at
which the victim testified. The victim's testimony was
corroborated by his stepbrother's constancy of accusation
testimony. During the state's direct examination of the
victim, the following exchange occurred:
Prosecutor]: [W]ith respect to your birthday and the time you
moved out of [the defendant's] apartment, can you tell us
‘‘[The Victim]: He kicked us out a few days
before my birthday. And my mom told me the reason he kicked
‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Objection. It's hearsay.
‘‘The Court: Sustained as to hearsay. You can
tell us-I'll permit-well, actually I'm going to
overrule the objection because it's the defendant's
statement. So it's a statement against penal interest. So
under that. . . . [Y]ou ...