## Facts

- T.R.D. previously was convicted of sexual assault and risk of injury to a child, triggering sex-offender registration duties under Connecticut law.
- Before release to probation in November 2002, correctional staff informed him of registration and address-verification obligations; he signed forms acknowledging those duties and the criminal penalties for noncompliance.
- The statutory scheme required the registry unit to mail address-verification letters every 90 days, with up to three letters in a cycle if the first was not returned.
- During a February 2003 verification cycle, T.R.D. did not return the first verification letter but returned a later letter in the same cycle, confirming his address.
- During a May 2003 verification cycle, he did not respond to any of three verification letters; his status was treated as “unknown,” and he was arrested in February 2004.
- A jury convicted him of failure to register as a sex offender and failure to comply with address-verification requirements.
- On appeal, T.R.D. argued the trial court improperly treated both offenses as strict liability by omitting a mens rea instruction.

## Issues

1. Whether the failure-to-register and failure-to-verify-address statutes require proof that the defendant knowingly failed to comply, rather than imposing strict liability.
2. Whether instructing the jury without a mens rea element was reversible error.

## Decision

- The Connecticut Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
- The Court construed the registration and address-verification offenses to require proof of a culpable mental state, at least knowledge.
- The trial court erred by instructing the jury in a manner that allowed conviction without a finding that T.R.D. knowingly failed to comply.
- The instructional error was not harmless because mens rea was an essential element of the charged crimes.

## Legal Principles

- Connecticut criminal statutes are presumed to include a mens rea requirement unless the legislature clearly indicates strict liability.
- For sex-offender registration and address-verification offenses, the state must prove the defendant knew of the statutory obligations and knowingly failed to perform the required acts; mere nonperformance is insufficient.
- When felony penalties and significant stigma attach, courts are reluctant to read silence on mental state as legislative intent to impose strict liability.
- Failure to instruct the jury on an essential mens rea element for these offenses requires reversal when the omission could have affected the verdict.

## Conclusion

The court held that Connecticut’s sex-offender registration and address-verification statutes require proof of knowing noncompliance and that a strict-liability instruction omitting mens rea is reversible error, requiring a new trial.


State v. T.R.D., 286 Conn. 191, 942 A.2d 1000 (Conn. 2008)