In State v. Albert, 252 Conn. 795, 805, 750 A.2d 1037 (2000), the court rejected the defendant's claim that he must put his finger "'beyond the labia majora'" to fall within the definition of intercourse. State v. Albert, supra, at 813. Significantly, the court then noted that even if it were to accept the defendant's interpretation, the fact that the victim stated that the defendant's touches hurt her presented evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded that the defendant had put his finger beyond the victim's labia majora. Id.