Opinion
(SC 15720)
Argued May 29, 1998
Officially released August 11, 1998
Substitute information charging the defendant with two counts of the crime of risk of injury to a child and with one count each of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree and sexual assault in the fourth degree, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford and tried to the jury before Freed, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Foti, Lavery and Schaller, Js., which reversed the trial court's judgment with regard to the charge of sexual assault in the first degree and remanded the case with direction to render judgment of guilty of sexual assault in the second degree and for resentencing thereon, and, on the granting of certification, the defendant appealed and the state cross appealed to this court. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.
Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, for the appellant-appellee (defendant).
James M. Ralls, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and John M. Massameno, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee-appellant (state).
OPINION
After examining the record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal and cross appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.
We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Court; State v. Morales, 45 Conn. App. 116, 694 A.2d 1356 (1997); limited to the following issues: (1) "Whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the defendant's confrontation rights were not violated when the trial court refused to allow the defendant to cross-examine D, the child complainant, as well as her mother, Dr. Frederick Barrien and Veronica Lugris, about her previous accusations that the defendant's son sexually abused her?" (2) "Whether the Appellate Court was correct in upholding the trial court's refusal to allow the defendant to cross-examine D's mother about the sleeping arrangements in the home?" State v. Morales, 242 Conn. 903, 697 A.2d 689 (1997).
We also granted a cross petition for certification by the state of Connecticut limited to the following issue: "Under the circumstances of this case, did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the defendant's conviction for sexual assault in the first degree constituted a violation of the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution?" State v. Morales, 242 Conn. 904, 697 A.2d 690 (1997).
The appeal and the cross appeal are dismissed.