## Facts

- William M. Spigarolo was charged with sexually abusing two minor girls.
- A jury convicted him of two counts of second-degree sexual assault and four counts of risk of injury to a minor.
- At trial, the defense attacked the children’s credibility by stressing omissions and apparent inconsistencies across their disclosures.
- The prosecution presented expert testimony from a social worker experienced with sexually abused children that incomplete, delayed, or seemingly inconsistent disclosures are common among such victims.
- The expert did not opine that either child was telling the truth and did not state that abuse occurred in this case.
- Under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86g, the trial court permitted the children to testify outside the physical presence of the defendant and jury, with testimony transmitted electronically into the courtroom.
- The trial court made case-specific findings that testifying in the defendant’s presence would likely cause serious emotional harm or impair the children’s ability to testify.

## Issues

1. Whether allowing the child complainants to testify outside the defendant’s physical presence under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54-86g violated the Sixth Amendment (and state constitutional) right to confrontation, as applied in this case.
2. Whether expert testimony describing general behavioral characteristics and disclosure patterns of sexually abused children was improperly admitted because it effectively vouched for the complainants’ credibility.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held § 54-86g constitutional and properly applied because the procedure preserved oath, cross-examination, and the ability of the jury and defendant to observe the witnesses’ demeanor through electronic transmission.
- The court held the expert testimony admissible because it assisted the jury on behavioral matters beyond ordinary experience and did not express an opinion on the truthfulness of the particular child witnesses.

## Legal Principles

- The Confrontation Clause’s core protections include testimony under oath, meaningful cross-examination, and the factfinder’s ability to observe the witness’s demeanor; physical face-to-face confrontation may yield when a case-specific necessity is found and these core elements are maintained.
- A child-witness procedure requiring individualized judicial findings of likely serious emotional harm (or impaired ability to testify) may justify testimony outside the defendant’s physical presence when the defendant can see and hear the witness and counsel can cross-examine.
- Expert testimony on general characteristics of sexually abused children (including delayed, incomplete, or apparently inconsistent disclosure) is admissible to help jurors evaluate credibility attacks based on such behavior, provided the expert does not directly or indirectly opine that the specific complainant is truthful or that abuse occurred.
- Credibility determinations remain for the jury when expert testimony is confined to general explanatory context rather than case-specific truthfulness.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a protective child-testimony procedure that preserved oath, cross-examination, and observation, and it approved expert testimony explaining typical disclosure behaviors of sexually abused children when used to contextualize impeachment without vouching for the complainants’ credibility.


State v. Spigarolo, 210 Conn. 359, 556 A.2d 112 (Conn. 1989)