The respondent appeals from the judgment adjudicating him a delinquent for having committed the crime of sexual assault in the fourth degree in viоlation of General Statutes § oSaUSa.
The following facts were found by the trial court. The victim was a twelve year old female grade school student in New Haven. On April 15, 1998, the victim and two оther girls were on their way to the victim’s locker, which was located in her classroom, when they were followed by the respondent and twо other boys. As the victim entered her classroom, the two other girls left, stating that they would be “right back.” At this time, the respondent and the two other boys entered the classroom, closed the door and told the victim that she had to kiss one of the boys, T, or else she could not leave the classroom. The victim resisted, banged on the door and was subsequently let out of the classroom. As she went outside the classroom, T grabbed her hand and attempted to prevent her from telling anyone.
The victim began to run up the stairs located in the hallway when she and thе respondent bumped heads, at which time the respondent began hitting her buttocks. After the victim pushed the respondent away, T grabbed her hands and pushed her against the wall. The respondent and T started pulling at her pants. The victim told
A petition was filed in the Superior Court for juvenile matters alleging that the respondent was a dеlinquent for having committed sexual assault in the third degree and unlawful restraint in the second degree. On November 10,1998, the court granted the respоndent’s motion for judgment of acquittal as to those charges, but allowed the petitioner to proceed on the lesser included оffense of sexual assault in the fourth degree. The court found that the respondent had committed sexual assault in the fourth degree and аdjudicated him a delinquent. On December 10, 1998, at the dispositional hearing, the respondent was discharged with a warning. This appeal followеd.
The respondent claims that the court improperly found that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that he had committed sexual assault in the fourth degree pursuant to § 53a-73a. Specifically, he claims that the petitioner had failed to prove that hе touched the victim’s intimate parts for the purposes of either sexual gratification or humiliating and degrading the victim. We do not agreе.
“The standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims is well settled in this state. . . . [0]ur courts apply a two-prong test. First, we construe thе evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second, we determine whether upon the facts so construed and the inferеnces reasonably drawn therefrom the [trier of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumulative force of thе evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” (Internal
“[I]n viewing evidence which could yield contrary inferences, the [trier оf fact] is not barred from drawing those inferences consistent with guilt and is not required to draw only those inferences consistent with innocence. The rule is that the [trier of fact’s] function is to draw whatever inferences from evidence or facts established by the evidence it deеms to be reasonable and logical.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sivri,
Section 53a-73a (a) (2) provides that a person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth degree when “such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent . . . .” Gеneral Statutes § 53a-65 (3) defines “sexual contact” as “any contact with the intimate parts of a person . . . for the purpose of sеxual gratification of the actor or for the purpose of degrading or humiliating such person . . . .” General Statutes § 53a-65 (8) defines “intimate рarts” as “the genital area, groin, anus, inner thighs, buttocks or breasts.”
For behavior to constitute a sexual assault in the fourth degree, there must bе “sexual contact” as defined by statute. In this case, the respondent admitted to “smacking” the victim’s buttocks more than once and this cоnstituted “sexual contact” as defined in § 53a-65 (3). The court, in fact, made a specific finding that the respondent had slapped the victim’s buttоcks and concluded that this alone was sufficient to constitute sexual assault in the fourth degree. While the court made no specifiс finding that the purpose for the respondent’s actions was to humiliate or to degrade the victim, “[w]e give deference to the evidence and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom that support the
The respondent’s contention that he did not have sexual contact with the victim because he did not touch the victim’s “intimate parts,” but rather touched the victim’s clothes, is incorrect. To have “sexual contact” as defined by the statute it is irrelevant whеther the respondent’s contact with the victim was through clothing or with bare skin. In State v. Eric T.,
The judgment is affirmed.
In this opinion the other judges concurred.
Notes
General Statutes § 53a-73a (a) provides in rеlevant part: “A person is guilty of sexual assault in the fourth when ... (2) such person subjects another person to sexual contact without such other person’s consent
T was also charged with sexual assault. The cases were tried separately.
This ended the respondent’s involvement in the incident.