The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal and the Supreme Court denied petitioner's petition for certification. State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn.App. 283, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539, (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1109, 128 S.Ct. 895, 169 L.Ed.2d 747 (2008). (Ramirez II. )
In a harmless error analysis, the question is whether the trial court's error was so prejudicial as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial....” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn.App. 283, 286–87, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1109, 128 S.Ct. 895, 169 L.Ed.2d 747 (2008). The defendant was not hindered in any way in making his offer of proof.
Juan Fernando RAMIREZ, petitioner, v. CONNECTICUT.Case below, 101 Conn.App. 283, 921 A.2d 702. Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appellate Court of Connecticut denied.
The defendant's petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 101 Conn. App. 283 (AC 26143), is denied. Decided July 17, 2007.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramirez , 101 Conn. App. 283, 287, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007), cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1109, 128 S. Ct. 895, 169 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2008). In this appeal, the respondent does not challenge the court's underlying factual findings or its conclusion that the petitioner proved by clear and convincing evidence the adjudicatory ground of failure to rehabilitate.
We disagree. In State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn. App. 283, 295-96, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007), cert. denied, U.S. 128 S. Ct. 895, 169 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2008), this court held that it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to allow the state's expert witness to testify that a delay in a victim's reporting of sexual abuse could stem from a variety of factors that are based on the individual's circumstances. Ramirez stated that "expert testimony should be admitted when: (1) the witness has special skill or knowledge directly applicable to a matter in issue, (2) that skill or knowledge is not common to the average person, and (3) the testimony would be helpful to the court or jury in considering the issues."
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wild, 43 Conn. App. 458, 467, 684 A.2d 720, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 954, 688 A.2d 326 (1996); see also State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn. App. 283, 297, 921 A.2d 702 (well established in Connecticut that trial court generally not obligated, sua sponte, to give limiting instruction), cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007), cert. denied, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 895, 169 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2008). The claim fails.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn. App. 283, 298, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007), cert. denied, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 895, 169 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2008). In its May 30, 2006 memorandum of decision, the habeas court held that this claim had been "conclusively resolved" by our Supreme Court in State v. Faraday, supra, 268 Conn. 203-205.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn. App. 283, 286-87, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007), cert. denied, U.S., 128 S. Ct. 895, 169 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2008); see also State v. Ortiz, 101 Conn. App. 411, 427, 922 A.2d 244, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 911, 928 A.2d 538 (2007). The defendant has failed to brief which test applies for determining whether Power's testimony was harmful.
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ramirez, 101 Conn.App. 283, 297-98, 921 A.2d 702, cert. denied, 283 Conn. 909, 928 A.2d 539 (2007). This court also acknowledges well-established authority relevant to the doctrine of res judicata holding that judgments are final, notwithstanding a pending appeal. Salem Park, Inc. v. Salem, 149 Conn. 141, 144, 176 A.2d 571 (1961).