Read the full stored bill text
Senate
SB290 / File No. 495 1
General Assembly File No. 495
February Session, 2026 Senate Bill No. 290
Senate, April 8, 2026
The Committee on Judiciary reported through SEN. WINFIELD
of the 10th Dist., Chairperson of the Committee on the part of
the Senate, that the bill ought to pass.
AN ACT CLARIFYING THE MEANINGS OF "SEXUAL INTERCOURSE"
AND "SEXUAL CONTACT".
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General
Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective from passage and applicable to acts occurring 1
before, on or after said date) Any prosecution for a violation of sections 53a-2
70 to 53a -73a, inclusive, of the general statutes may be brought on the 3
basis of a single act or two or more acts committed over a period of time 4
as a continuous course of conduct. 5
This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following
sections:
Section 1 from passage and
applicable to acts occurring
before, on or after said date
New section
JUD Joint Favorable
SB290 File No. 495
SB290 / File No. 495 2
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.
(Probation)
GF - Potential
Cost
Minimal Minimal
Resources of the General Fund GF - Potential
Revenue Gain
Minimal Minimal
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 $3,3001 while the
average marginal cost for supervision in the community is less than
$6002 each year for adults and $450 each year for juveniles.
The Out Years
The annualized ongoing fiscal impact identified above would
1 Inmate 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 o pened.
2 Probation 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
SB290 / File No. 495 3
continue into the future subject to the number of offenses and fines
collected.
SB290 File No. 495
SB290 / File No. 495 4
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.
421 (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 single statutory violation; (2) the evidence 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. 495
SB290 / File No. 495 5
COMMITTEE ACTION
Judiciary Committee
Joint Favorable
Yea 41 Nay 0 (03/23/2026)