The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

On April 2, 1998, D entered pleas of nolo contendere to charges of sexual assault in the first degree. D was sentenced to twelve years imprisonment, execution suspended after five years, followed by ten years of probation. Prior to being released D met with the coordinator for sex offender registration who informed D of his responsibilities under the Connecticut sex offender registration law. One such responsibility is to return address verification letters, which are sent by the sex offender registry unit (unit) of the department of public safety every ninety days. D signed several forms stating that he understood his responsibilities under the registration law, and further, that he understood that noncompliance with these responsibilities would constitute a crime. D did not return the first letter sent but did return the second letter, which the unit received on February 27, 2003. On the next 90-day period, when the unit did not receive a response from the D, it sent two additional address verification letters. After the unit did not receive a response to any of the three letters D's status changed to 'failure to verify his address' and his address was considered unknown. D was arrested for failure to comply with the registration requirements on February 24, 2004. A jury found D guilty of failing to register as a sex offender in accordance with §§ 54-251 and 54-257. D appealed. D claims in part that the trial court improperly instructed the jury in that it failed to include an element of mens rea in its instruction regarding §§ 54-251 and 54-257.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.