State v. Robert H.

         Argued May 2, 2018

         Appeal from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Suarez, J.

         Glenn W. Falk, assigned counsel, with whom, on the brief, was Robert M. Black, for the appellant (defendant).

         Bruce R. Lockwood, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Gail P. Hardy, state’s attorney, John F. Fahey, senior assistant state’s attorney, and Lisa Herskowitz, former senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).

         Palmer, McDonald, Robinson, D’Auria, Mullins, Kahn and Vertefeuille, Js.^[**]

          OPINION

          PER CURIAM.

Page 344

          [333 Conn. 174] The common-law corpus delicti rule "prohibits a prosecutor from proving the [fact of a transgression] based solely on a defendant’s extrajudicial statements." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leniart, 333 Conn. 88, 97, __ A.3d __ (2019). Following a jury trial, the defendant in the present case, Robert H., was convicted of two counts of risk of injury to a child, in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (1), arising from two alleged incidents of sexual misconduct.^[1] On appeal, he argued before the Appellate Court that the only evidence that he committed the second alleged act of misconduct were statements he made to the police and, therefore, that his conviction on that count violated the corpus delicti rule. Because the defendant did not raise the corpus delicti issue or challenge the admissibility of his statements at trial, and because the Appellate Court was of the view that corpus delicti is merely an evidentiary rule that must be raised at trial to be reviewable on appeal, that court concluded that his claim was unreviewable.^[2] State v. Robert H., 168 Conn.App. 419, 422, 146 A.3d 995 (2016). We granted [333 Conn. 175] certification, limited to the following question: "Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the corpus delicti rule is merely a rule of admissibility, in determining that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s second conviction of risk of injury to a child in violation of ... § 53-21 (a) (1)?" State v. Robert H., 323 Conn. 940, 151 A.3d 845 (2016).

          In a companion case that we decide today, we answer that question, concluding that our corpus delicti rule is a hybrid evidentiary-substantive rule that implicates a defendant’s fundamental right not to be convicted in the absence of evidence sufficient to establish every essential element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and, therefore, even unpreserved corpus delicti claims are reviewable on appeal. See State v. Leniart, supra, 333 Conn. at 110 __ A.3d __. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court for full consideration of the merits of the defendant’s corpus delicti claim.^[3]

Page 345

          The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court for further ...