Opinion
(7818)
Argued November 3, 1989
Decision released November 28, 1989
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of sexual assault in the second degree and risk of injury to a child, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Middlesex and tried to the jury before Vasington, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed to this court, Borden, Daly and O'Connell, Js., which remanded the matter for an in camera inspection of the victim's psychiatric records; thereafter, the court, Vasington, J., determined that the records contained no relevant evidence that would be admissible to impeach the victim's testimony, and the defendant appealed to this court. No error.
John J. Carta, Jr., for the appellant (defendant).
Leon F. Dalbec, Jr., deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John T. Redway, state's attorney, and Michael Dannehy and Julia DiCocco Dewey, assistant state's attorneys, for the appellee (state).
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).