SB 290 — AN ACT CLARIFYING THE MEANINGS OF "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" AND "SEXUAL CONTACT".

Senate General Assembly RaisedFile Bill No.

290495 February Session, 2026 LCOSenate Bill No.

1719290 ReferredSenate, toApril 8, 2026 The Committee on JUDICIARYJudiciary Introducedreportedthrough by:SEN.

(JUD)WINFIELD ANof ACTthe CLARIFYING10th THEDist., MEANINGSChairperson OFof "SEXUALthe INTERCOURSE"Committee ANDon "SEXUALthe CONTACT".part of the Senate, that the bill ought to pass.

AN ACT CLARIFYING THE MEANINGS OF "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" AND "SEXUAL CONTACT".

Section 1 from passage and New section applicable to acts occurring before, on or after said date JUD Joint Favorable LCOSB290 1719/ 1File ofNo. 1

495 1 SB290 File No.

495 The following Fiscal Impact Statement and Bill Analysis are prepared for the benefit of the members of the General Assembly, solely for purposes of information, summarization and explanation and do not represent the intent of the General Assembly or either chamber thereof for any purpose.

In general, fiscal impacts are based upon a variety of informational sources, including the analyst’s professional knowledge.

Whenever applicable, agency data is consulted as part of the analysis, however final products do not necessarily reflect an assessment from any specific department.

OFA Fiscal Note State Impact:

Agency Affected Fund-Effect FY 27 $ FY 28 $ Correction, Dept.;

Judicial Dept.

GF - Potential Minimal Minimal (Probation) Cost Resources of the General Fund GF - Potential Minimal Minimal Revenue Gain Note:

GF=General Fund Municipal Impact:

None Explanation The bill, which allows sexual assault prosecutions to be based on multiple acts committed over time as a continuous course of conduct, results in a potential cost to the Department of Correction and the Judicial Department for incarceration or probation and a potential revenue gain to the General Fund from fines to the extent more individuals are found criminally liable.

On average, the marginal cost to the state for incarcerating an offender for the year is $3,300 while the average marginal cost for supervision in the community is less than $600 each year for adults and $450 each year for juveniles.

The Out Years The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would 1Inmate marginal cost is based on increased consumables (e.g., food, clothing, water, sewage, living supplies, etc.) This does not include a change in staffing costs or utility expenses because these expenses would only be realized if a unit or facility opened.

2Probation marginal cost is based on services provided by private providers and only includes costs that increase with each additional participant.

This does not include a cost for additional supervision by a probation officer unless a new offense is anticipated to result in enough additional offenders to require additional probation officers.

SB290 / File No.

495 2 SB290 File No.

495 continue into the future subject to the number of offenses and fines collected.

SB290 / File No.

495 3 SB290 File No.

495 OLR Bill Analysis SB 290 AN ACT CLARIFYING THE MEANINGS OF "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE" AND "SEXUAL CONTACT".

SUMMARY This bill allows sexual assault prosecutions to be based on a single act or multiple acts committed over time as a continuous course of conduct.

Current law, as interpreted by the state Supreme Court, does not allow for the latter.

In a 2022 state Supreme Court case involving 1st degree sexual assault, the court held that the existing sexual assault laws criminalize only individual acts and not a continuing course of conduct (State v.

Joseph V., 345 Conn.

516 (2022)).

The court applied its ruling from another opinion released the same day, State v.

Douglas C., 345 Conn.

(2022) (see below), and reversed the 1st degree sexual assault conviction in the Joseph case and remanded it for a new trial.

Under Douglas C., the court held that a defendant’s constitutional right to jury unanimity is violated if (1) the defendant was charged with a single count for a singlestatutory violation;(2)theevidence supported separate incidents, each of which could independently establish the violation;

and (3) there was not a specific unanimity instruction to the jury or a bill of particulars (a detailed itemization of the charges given upon the defendant’s request).

In this situation, the defendant is entitled to a new trial if there is the risk that the conviction was due to different jurors concluding that the defendant committed different acts of that crime.

EFFECTIVE DATE:

Upon passage and applicable to acts occurring before, on, or after that date.

SB290 / File No.