State v. Little, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 104

Defendant Ronald Little pleaded guilty in 1991 to sexual assault in the third degree and was placed on probation with Megan’s Law registration obligations.
He first registered with the Connecticut sex offender registry on July 9, 1999, and complied with verification forms until June 2007.
The registry sent address verification forms every 90 days; forms were due within 10 days.
In June 2007, he failed to return a verification form; registry sent notices in July 2007; he did not respond.
On December 4, 2007 he emailed the registry requesting a new address; registry updated address and sent a verification form to that address, which he returned.
He was charged January 12, 2008 with failing to register; trial to the court resulted in a conviction and a suspended sentence with probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence Little was a sexually violent offender needing to register	Little had previously been convicted of a sexually violent offense	Little argues the record does not prove a sexually violent offense under §54-252	Waived by defense; sufficient evidence also supports finding of sexually violent offense
Whether the evidence showed Little failed to comply with § 54-252 registration requirements	Registry proved noncompliance via June 2007 form and lack of communication	Little claimed he communicated a new address and updated the registry	Sufficient evidence of noncompliance; trial court credibility determinations supported
Whether retroactive application of § 54-252 violates Connecticut Constitution	Golding review; statute is ex post facto	Ex post facto protection stronger under Connecticut constitution	No constitutional violation; regulatory, not punitive; Connecticut protection not broader than federal

State v. Rosario, 113 Conn.App. 79 (2009) (sufficiency standard; appellate deference to trial credibility)
State v. Cooper, 38 Conn.App. 661 (1995) (waiver of proving all elements possible by defense strategy)
State v. Muckle, 108 Conn.App. 146 (2008) (credibility of witnesses deferential to trial court)
State v. Waterman, 264 Conn. 484 (2003) (Megan's Law regulatory, not punitive; ex post facto analysis guided by Kelly)
State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 (2001) (Megan's Law regulatory; ex post facto not violated)
State v. Pentland, 296 Conn. 305 (2010) (regulatory nature of Megan's Law reaffirmed)
State v. Arthur H., 288 Conn. 582 (2008) (registration regulatory, not punitive)
State v. Pierce, 69 Conn.App. 516 (2002) (Megan's Law registration is regulatory)
Doe v. Pataki, 120 F.3d 1263 (2d Cir. 1997) (ex post facto analysis informing federal standard)
Golding, State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (test for unpreserved constitutional error)