’ (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gombert, 80 Conn.App. 477, 485-86, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). In summary, [t]he procedures prescribed by § 54-86g(a) are designed to balance carefully both the defendant’s right to confrontation and the state’s interest in securing reliable testimony from minor victims of sexual assault.
Foremost amongst this evidence was the affidavit of Joseph Santoro, who was incarcerated with Gombert in Connecticut and claimed that Gombert had made incriminating admissions in April 2011 with respect to his involvement in the victim's death. Gombert was incarcerated for crimes that included attempted sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl and third-degree sexual assault of one of his girlfriends (see State v. Gombert, 80 Conn.App. 477, 479, 836 A.2d 437, 441 [2003] ; Gombert v. Warden, 2013 WL 4873470, *1, 2013 Conn Super LEXIS 1895, *1 [Aug. 22, 2013, No. CV104003855S] ).According to Santoro's affidavit, Gombert told him that Putnam County authorities were “trying to get him for the killing of two girls” in the Putnam County area. Gombert named the victim as one of the girls, asserting that, in any event, “they already convicted some other suckers” in connection with her death.
Foremost amongst this evidence was the affidavit of Joseph Santoro, who was incarcerated with Gombert in Connecticut and claimed that Gombert had made incriminating admissions in April 2011 with respect to his involvement in the victim's death. Gombert was incarcerated for crimes that included attempted sexual assault of an eight-year-old girl and third-degree sexual assault of one of his girlfriends (see State v. Gombert, 80 Conn.App. 477, 479, 836 A.2d 437, 441 [2003] ; Gombert v. Warden, 2013 WL 4873470, *1, 2013 Conn Super LEXIS 1895, *1 [Aug. 22, 2013, No. CV104003855S] ).According to Santoro's affidavit, Gombert told him that Putnam County authorities were “trying to get him for the killing of two girls” in the Putnam County area. Gombert named the victim as one of the girls, asserting that, in any event, “they already convicted some other suckers” in connection with her death.
Therefore, the line of inquiry was pivotal to the issues before the trial court. See State v. Gombert, 80 Conn. App. 477, 488-89, 836 A.2d 437 (2003) ("materiality turns upon what is at issue in the case, which generally will be determined by the pleadings and the applicable substantive law" [emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted]), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 4-1, commentary. Indeed, during the dispositional phase of the proceeding, the plaintiff "acknowledge[d] that the significance to [the court's] decision on this emergency application, to knowing as much as possible about the alternative forum. . . . So I think, Your Honor, there would be an acknowledgment."
Decided January 22, 2004 The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 80 Conn. App. 477 (AC 23012), is denied. Kent Drager, senior assistant public defender, in support of the petition.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gombert, 80 Conn.App. 477, 497, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). Intent may be inferred from the accused's conduct before, during, and after an alleged crime.
" (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gombert, 80 Conn. App. 477, 488-89, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004); see Conn. Code Evid. § 4-1, commentary. "When determining admissibility, however, relevance and materiality are not the only factors.
" (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gombert, 80 Conn. App. 477, 485-86, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert, denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). In summary, "[t]he procedures prescribed by § 54-86g (a) are designed to balance carefully both the defendant's right to confrontation and the state's interest in securing reliable testimony from minor victims of sexual assault.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gombert, 80 Conn. App. 477, 498-99, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion.
Nevertheless, the evidence was presented in passing, and neither the prosecutor nor defense counsel focused their examinations on that evidence. See State v. Gombert, 80 Conn. App. 477, 490, 836 A.2d 437 (2003), cert. denied, 267 Conn. 915, 841 A.2d 220 (2004). Further, the prosecutor did not emphasize or rely on the testimony during closing argument.