State v. Scott
In State v. Scott, 11 Conn. App. 102, 110-11, 525 A.2d 1364, cert. denied, 204 Conn. 811, 528 A.2d 1157 (1987), the defendant was convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and claimed on appeal that the state's proof was insufficient because it did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he and the victim were not married.
Then Associate Judge David M. Borden, writing for the court, concluded that the absence of a marital relationship was not an essential element of the crime, and, therefore, the trial court did not improperly omit from its charge to the jury, and the state was not required to establish as part of its case-in-chief, the lack of a marital status. Id. at 111.
The court stated that "the state bears the burden of proving all essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt," but "whether the existence of some fact is an essential element of a crime depends upon whether the existence of that fact forms a part of the conduct prohibited by the statute; that is, whether the fact in question is part of the corpus delicti." Id. at 111-12.