State v. Pettersen

Connecticut Appellate Court

State v. Pettersen

566 A.2d 714, 20 Conn. App. 288, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 355

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedNovember 28, 1989

Docket7818

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 566 A.2d 714 (State v. Pettersen) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Pettersen, 566 A.2d 714, 20 Conn. App. 288, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 355 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. The matter was remanded to the trial judge for the purpose of conducting an in camera inspection of the psychiatric records of the victim. State v. Pettersen, 17 Conn. App. 174, 551 A.2d 763 (1988). After obtaining the written consent of the victim and her mother, the trial judge complied with the order on remand and found “that there is no relevant evidence in the victim’s psychiatric records which would be admissible for impeachment purposes and that, notwithstanding nonaccess to said records, the defendant was not denied the right of cross-examination guaranteed to him by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in making that finding.

We have reviewed the psychiatric records submitted as sealed exhibits and after a careful and thorough examination we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant access to the privileged material. State v. D’Ambrosio, 212 Conn. 50, 58-59, 561 A.2d 422 (1989).

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-71 (a) (1) and risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. The matter was remanded to the trial judge for the purpose of conducting an in camera inspection of the psychiatric records of the victim. State v. Pettersen, 17 Conn. App. 174, 551 A.2d 763 (1988). After obtaining the written consent of the victim and her mother, the trial judge complied with the order on remand and found “that there is no relevant evidence in the victim’s psychiatric records which would be admissible for impeachment purposes and that, notwithstanding nonaccess to said records, the defendant was not denied the right of cross-examination guaranteed to him by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution.” The defendant claims that the trial court erred in making that finding.

We have reviewed the psychiatric records submitted as sealed exhibits and after a careful and thorough examination we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant access to the privileged material. State v. D’Ambrosio, 212 Conn. 50, 58-59, 561 A.2d 422 (1989).

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

566 A.2d 714, 20 Conn. App. 288, 1989 Conn. App. LEXIS 355, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-pettersen-connappct-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack