State v. Abreu, 141 Conn. App. 1

Defendant Vernon Abreu was convicted after a jury trial of risk of injury to or impairing the morals of a child (53-21(a)(2)) and delivering alcohol to a minor (30-86(b)(2)).
Victim was 13 years old when the alleged offenses occurred on September 1, 2008, including a lotion-assisted touching incident at the defendant's apartment after a beach outing.
The jury also acquitted Abreu of two counts of sexual assault in the second degree (53a-71(a)(1)).
The state sought to prove sexual intercourse or contact with the victim’s intimate parts; the defense challenged the sufficiency of evidence for the risk-of-injury conviction given the acquittals on sexual assault.
The trial court denied a judgment of acquittal after the state rested, and Abreu appealed the sufficiency of the evidence for the risk-of-injury conviction.
The appellate court affirmed, holding that the risk-of-injury conviction was supported by the victim’s testimony and did not depend on the sexual assault verdicts.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence for risk of injury to a child after acquittal on sexual assault counts	Abreu argues inconsistent verdicts require reversal; insufficiency follows from acquittals.	State contends issue is not inconsistent verdict but sufficiency of evidence; claims distinct elements.	Sufficiency review applied; evidence supported risk conviction despite acquittals.
Whether the court properly instructed the jury on elements of the charged offenses	Not explicitly stated; focus is on evidence tying contact to a sexual and indecent manner.	Instructions correctly defined intimate parts and required sexual/indecent contact likely to impair.	Court’s instructions on elements and definitions were proper and adequate.

State v. Morales, 78 Conn. App. 25 (Conn. App. 2003) (inconsistent verdicts doctrine not controlling when elements differ)
State v. Nelson, 118 Conn. App. 831 (Conn. App. 2010) (two separate elements may support multiple verdicts)
State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 558 (Conn. 2009) (inconsistent verdicts not reviewable when different elements apply)