Argued
March 4, 2019
Appeal
from the Superior Court, Judicial District of Windham,
Seeley, J.
Page 879
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
Page 880
Richard Emanuel, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
Nancy
L. Chupak, senior assistant states attorney, with whom, on
the brief, were Anne F. Mahoney, states attorney, and
Marissa Goldberg, assistant states attorney, for the
appellee (state).
DiPentima,
C. J., and Alvord and Eveleigh, Js.
OPINION
ALVORD,
J.
[193
Conn.App. 458] The defendant, Jeffrey Todd Palumbo, appeals
from the judgments of conviction, rendered following a jury
trial, of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of
General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2), sexual assault in the
fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a (a)
(1) (A), and two counts of risk of injury to a child in
violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2). On appeal, the
defendant claims, pursuant to Doyle v. Ohio, 426
U.S. 610, 619, 96 S.Ct. 2240, 49 L.Ed.2d 91 (1976), that the
state (1) violated his [193 Conn.App. 459] constitutional
right to remain silent by introducing evidence of his
post-Miranda [1] silence and (2) engaged in
prosecutorial impropriety by attempting to elicit evidence of
his post-Miranda silence.[2] We affirm the judgments
of the trial court.
The
following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found,
and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this
appeal. The defendant started dating the victims mother, K,
on August 8, 2008, when the victim was three.[3] The defendant
moved into an apartment in Montville with K and the victim in
March, 2009, when K became pregnant with the defendants
child. The defendant continued living there with K and the
victim after their son, T, was born, and his older son from a
previous relationship, D, moved in with K and the victim as
well. The defendant moved out of Ks apartment in May, 2012.
However,
Page 881
the defendant still had contact with the victim because he
and K shared custody of T, and the defendant and D would
occasionally go to Ks apartment to watch movies and play
video games with K, T, and the victim.
K, T,
and the victim also would visit the defendant and D at the
defendants apartment in Danielson. Sometimes K would leave
the victim alone with the defendant [193 Conn.App. 460] while
she ran errands. On one occasion at the defendants
apartment, the victim was in the defendants bedroom lying
down at the edge of his bed. The defendant told her to take
her pants off and she did. She saw that the defendants
"front private went through a hole in his
underwear." He told her to touch it. She testified that
she did, that it felt "squishy," and that the
...