## Facts

- The defendant was charged with sexual assault and related offenses arising from allegations that she, a school employee, engaged in sexual misconduct with a 14-year-old student.
- During the pending criminal prosecution, the alleged victim sought to attend (personally or through counsel) in-chambers, off-the-record pretrial disposition conferences among the judge, prosecutor, and defense counsel.
- The trial court barred the alleged victim from attending those conferences.
- The alleged victim filed a writ of error against the defendant and the Superior Court, claiming the exclusion violated the victims’ rights provision of the Connecticut Constitution.

## Issues

1. Whether the alleged victim was sufficiently aggrieved and the exclusion order was a final judgment permitting review by writ of error.
2. Whether the Connecticut Constitution’s victims’ rights amendment grants a victim (or representative) the right to attend in-chambers, off-the-record pretrial disposition conferences as “court proceedings the accused has the right to attend.”

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court concluded it had jurisdiction because the alleged victim was aggrieved and the order was effectively final for purposes of protecting the claimed constitutional right.
- The court held that in-chambers, off-the-record pretrial disposition conferences are not “court proceedings the accused has the right to attend” under the victims’ rights amendment.
- The writ of error was dismissed.

## Legal Principles

- A crime victim may seek appellate relief by writ of error for alleged violations of the Connecticut constitutional victims’ rights amendment when the claim is colorable and would be irretrievably lost without immediate review.
- For victims’ rights purposes, “court proceedings the accused has the right to attend” refers to formal proceedings, not informal, off-the-record, in-chambers disposition discussions.
- Because a defendant has no constitutional right to attend every off-the-record in-chambers discussion, a victim’s parallel right to attend does not extend to such conferences.

## Conclusion

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that the state constitutional right allowing victims to attend proceedings the accused has the right to attend does not include off-the-record, in-chambers pretrial disposition conferences, so the alleged victim had no constitutional right to be present.


State v. Damato-Kushel, 173 A.3d 357 (Conn. 2017)