Rockin Ma
April 18th, 2009, 09:25 PM
Waterford - A child care worker at the Waterford Country School was arrested Wednesday for allegedly having sexual contact with a student staying at the facility for at-risk children and families.
Koa Kent, 27, of 88 Jefferson Ave., New London, was charged with first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor.
Kent was employeed as a child care worker at the school for nearly a year, said the school's executive director, David Moorehead. In January, shortly after school officials were notified by other students of the alleged contact between Kent and the female student, they suspended him and he was fired last month after an internal investigation, Moorehead said.
Police said they were notified by school officials and looked into possible criminal charges.
”It appears he had some time of sexual contact with a student there,” said Waterford police Lt. Brett Mahoney.
The school is a private, not-for-profit human services agency that offers programs and services for children and families from throughout the state. It has a day-school program, special-education program, emergency shelter and residential treatment facility. Moorehead said Kent was working at the residential treatment facility, which is staffed 24 hours a day.
Moorehead said it is licensed by the state Department of Children and Families, which is also investigating, but he has not yet seen a report.
”We strive to maintain the highest standards, and kids come first,” Moorehead said, adding that employees go through various background checks before being hired. “Certainly any violation of that trust is a very serious matter of concern to us.”
Kent was ordered held on $150,000 bond and is scheduled to appear in court April 24.
http://archive.theday.com/re.aspx?re=a6e9d4a3-e229-444e-9353-445799557d1f
I'm posting this because I lived there for a time as a teen. I was seriously misplaced. I will say the majority of these children are both sexually/physically abused and have HUGE emotional problems which makes this person even more of a piece of shit. This is a place where the kids should for once feel safe after what they have been through in their lives.
Peeperann
April 18th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Wow... Who can kids really trust these fucking days? Other than parents I mean... That is beyond sickening.
What's sad is that some of these kids can't even trust their parents. Hence the reason they may there in the first place.
Wow, sick and sad......
Rockin Ma
April 20th, 2009, 07:36 PM
R E A D E R'S C O M M E N T S
Posted - 4/20/2009 11:02:59 AM
well honestly i dont think this was right, i know the young girl that was the victim and that messed her up, he should deffently be prosectuted
Sierra Smith
- 4/20/2009 11:03:56 AM
Posted - 4/18/2009 1:50:20 AM
as a retired social worker, the issue of men/women working with opposite sex children at risk has been a long-standing concern shared by many. sadly, i have seen too often associates in the field wrongly accused by children at risk- after the child would be reprimanded for breaking facility rules or unacceptable behaviors resulting in a loss of privileges.in my experience, its the minority of accused workers found guilty. and certainly, those found guilty are unquestionably in need of legal ramifications for their untoward, immoral, and shameful actions on a child.while those falsely accused carry around a shadow of doubt in the eyes of their coworkers, ultimately costing them their reputations and careers. and this wont stop until there's an increase in qualified same-gender staffing, pay, benefits for work in such a difficult field. please keep this in mind when looking at such cases.
concerned in colchester
colchester, ct
- 4/18/2009 1:55:33 AM
Posted - 4/17/2009 10:22:44 PM
why do they allow men to work with young abused girls? that seems dangerous anyway and like a set up for the men and girls
Susan
New London, CT
- 4/17/2009 10:39:19 PM
Posted - 4/17/2009 4:03:53 PM
This is a travesty. And he will see my face in the crowd on his court date. I also plan to call the prosecutor. This child could of been any one of our children. He used the capacity of his job to act as a predator.
cheryl Hicks
seymour,ct
- 4/17/2009 4:55:35 PM
Posted - 4/17/2009 2:36:40 PM
This is not a common occurrance at Waterford Country School. I am very familiar with the organization and am impressed by the staff and administration. Don't be so quick to pass judgement when the majority of the hard working, underpaid staff are not doing anything illegal and are working hard to help these children survive the neglect and abuse they have suffered a lot of the time at the hands of their own parents. This is an isolated but very unfortunate incident. Michelle in groton should really express her anger towards the INDIVIDUAL that did this and not berrate the entire adult staff for one person's actions. If I recall correctly it is usually the public school system that these stories come out of so don't try to act like these kids are being preyed on. Also keep in mind that the "children" at Waterford Country School range from very young to 18+ and you don't know the whole story.
- 4/17/2009 4:30:47 PM
Posted - 4/17/2009 11:48:37 AM
This is an isolated and extremely unfortunate incident that should never be condoned, however, I am familiar with Waterford Country School and know that they are one of the finest facilities in the state of CT that treat troubled children. My heart goes out to the young woman involved and her family.
Cari
Colchester
- 4/17/2009 11:52:23 AM
Posted - 4/17/2009 10:42:41 AM
A social workers mission is to help others help themsevles. Where did that mission go astray. You do not indulge yourself if making passes at young children its sick, and wrong. Children our the future, they make life worth living. Enough is enough with the abusing, and mind warping. Let them be little, dont remove their innocense.
SB
uncasville ct
- 4/17/2009 11:44:04 AM
Posted - 4/17/2009 8:40:28 AM
it is really a shame that you so called adults that work with our young children and youth would even consider having sexual relations with them.Be there for our children of today don't mess there life up these kids in the waterford country school need a lot of guidance and stability not sexual relations with so called adults that work with them it is really getting out of control
michelle
groton
Rockin Ma
April 20th, 2009, 07:39 PM
K10K-CR09-0302454-SProgram: Court:Arresting Agency:Arrest Date:Bond Amount:Bond Type: Activity: Awaiting Disposition Next Court Date: 4/24/2009 10:00 AM
Miscellaneous: New London GA 10 LOCAL POLICE WATERFORD 4/15/2009$150,000 (This case only)Set (Not Released From Custody)Companion: Defendant InformationLast, First:Birth Year:Times on the Docket:Represented By:KENT KOA ASIATA 19822 Current ChargesStatute Description Class Type Occ Offense Date Plea Verdict Finding
53a-70 SEXUAL ASSAULT 1ST DEG B Felony 1 1/28/2009
53-21 RISK OF INJURY TO CHILD C Felony 1 1/28/2009
Rockin Ma
April 20th, 2009, 07:41 PM
7.1 Introduction to Sexual Assault
Revised to December 1, 2007 (modified June 13, 2008)
"The state once had the burden of proving that the victim had earnestly resisted sexual intercourse. . . . The revision [made by Public Acts 1975, No. 75-619] altered the rape statute by deleting the element of 'forcible compulsion,' and its concomitant meaning of 'physical force that overcomes earnest resistance.' . . . The statute no longer requires that the state prove that physical force overcame earnest resistance, which was used in the past as a prerequisite to proving nonconsensual carnal knowledge by force. . . . Whereas forcible compulsion was once proved by demonstrating that force had overcome resistance, the state is now required to prove that it was the use of force or its threat which caused the victim to engage in sexual intercourse, and does not by its express language require that resistance be proven." State v. Mackor, 11 Conn. App. 316, 321-22 (1987). "Proof of resistance was required in the past as a mode of proving that the intercourse was nonconsensual. Under the present statute, the lack of consent is subsumed by proof of the use of force or the threat of the use of force." Id., 323. "Nonconsent is not an element of the crime of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a), but is embodied within the proof required of the use of force or the threat of the use of force." Id.; see also State v. Griffin, 97 Conn. 169, 186, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 925 (2006); State v. White, 55 Conn. App. 412, 418-21, cert. denied, 252 Conn. 908 (1999).
Consent, often raised as a defense, is more exactly a denial of the element of compulsion. "It is likely that juries in considering the defense of consent in sexual assault cases, though visualizing the issue in terms of actual consent by the complainant, have reached their verdicts on the basis of inferences that a reasonable person would draw from the conduct of the complainant and the defendant under the surrounding circumstances. It is doubtful that jurors would ever convict a defendant who had in their view acted in reasonable reliance upon words or conduct of the complainant indicating consent, even though there had been some concealed reluctance on her part. If a defendant were concerned about such a possibility, however, he would be entitled, once the issue is raised, to request a jury instruction that the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the conduct of the complainant would not have justified a reasonable belief that she had consented." State v. Smith, 210 Conn. 132, 141 (1989).
If the force used or threatened to be used in the course of committing sexual assault in the first and third degrees is sufficient to compel the victim to engage in sexual intercourse or to submit to sexual contact, then the lack of consent is implicit. State v. Jackson, 30 Conn. App. 281, 288-89, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 916 (1993); State v. Clinkscales, 21 Conn. App. 411, 419, cert. denied, 215 Conn. 815 (1990).
If a person initially consents to sexual intercourse, but then withdraws that consent and is compelled to continue, then it is sexual assault in the first degree. State v. Siering, 35 Conn. App. 173, 178-85, cert. denied, 231 Conn. 914 (1994) (supplemental instruction on withdrawal of consent was proper statement of law).
"Although it is true that typically in cases in which force has been proven, the evidence demonstrated either violence or some other form of physical coercion, we have consistently held that one also may be guilty of sexual assault in the first degree if one uses one's physical size or strength to threaten another to submit to sexual intercourse and that such threat may be expressed or implied." (Emphasis in original.) State v. Mahon, 97 Conn. App. 503, 512, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 930 (2006); see also State v. Davis, 61 Conn. App. 621, 638-39, cert. denied, 255 Conn. 951 (2001) (quoting court's instruction distinguishing between express and implied threats). In State v. Gagnon, 18 Conn. App. 694, 699, cert. denied, 213 Conn. 805 (1989), coercion was found when the defendant pretended to be a police officer, causing the victim to stop her vehicle. "Such coercion was intended to and did in fact place the victim in a position wherein she was compelled to submit to sexual contact by the defendant." Id., 699.
It is improper to instruct regarding the "use of force . . . or the threat of use of force" when the defendant is charged only with the "use of force" and no evidence is presented regarding the "threat of the use of force." State v. Chapman, 229 Conn. 529, 536-37 (1994).
On the use of force, compare State v. Hufford, 205 Conn. 386, 393 (1987) (because victim was physically helpless due to medical condition, it required no force to remove her clothes), and State v. Mahon, supra, 97 Conn. App. 511 (removal of the victim's clothing was sufficient evidence of the use of force, due to defendant's show of superior strength).
Intent
Sexual assault in the first and second degrees, which require sexual intercourse, are general intent crimes. See State v. Pierson, 201 Conn. 211, 216 (1986). "[N]o special instructions as to intent are required for a general intent crime unless something in the evidence presented indicates that the defendant acted involuntarily, without sufficient mental capacity, under duress or while entrapped." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson, 30 Conn. App. 281, 291, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 916 (1993).
Sexual assault in the third and fourth degrees are specific intent crimes. "The specific intent for sexual assault in the third degree is derived from General Statutes § 53a-65 (3), which provides in relevant part: 'Sexual contact' means any contact with the intimate parts of a person . . . for the purpose of sexual gratification of the actor. . . ." State v. Faria, 254 Conn. 613, 636 n.24 (2000).
"Because not every person who commits sexual assault has intercourse as their ultimate objective, the legislature in the penal code has distinguished between sexual assault with sexual intercourse as its goal and sexual assault with sexual contact as its goal." State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 405 (1993) (sufficient evidence of intent to compel sexual intercourse). "[T]he state had only to prove that the defendant took a substantial step in a course of conduct that was planned to culminate in intentionally compelling another person to engage in sexual intercourse. Thus, the charge on the element of intent necessary for attempted sexual assault in the first degree need not be more specific than instructing, as the trial court did here, that the state must prove that the defendant intended to compel sexual intercourse, regardless of which of the listed acts in the statutory definition might ultimately have been performed had not the defendant's attack on the victim been interrupted." Id., 413.
Lesser included offenses
Sexual assault in the second degree in violation of § 53a-71 (a) (2) is not a lesser included offense of sexual assault in the first degree because that subsection of second degree sexual assault has an age requirement that first degree sexual assault does not. State v. Michael A., 99 Conn. App. 251, 256-63 (2007).
Sexual assault in the third degree is not a lesser included offense of sexual assault in the first degree, because third degree requires proof of the additional element that the compelled sexual contact was for the purpose of either the sexual gratification of the actor or the humiliation or degradation of the victim. State v. Milardo, 224 Conn. 397, 417 (1993); State v. Mezrioui, 26 Conn. App. 395, 405-406, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 909 (1992). For the same reason, sexual assault in the fourth degree is not a lesser included offense of sexual assault in the second degree. State v. Sirimanochanh, 26 Conn. App. 625, 637 (1992), rev'd on other grounds, 224 Conn. 656 (1993).
Separate offenses
Two acts of penetration constitute two separate offenses and do not violate double jeopardy protection. The statute punishes "the act of forcible penetration itself, and, therefore, each penetration by the defendant constituted a separate and distinct repetition of the same prohibited act, irrespective of the brief period of time separating them." State v. Scott, 270 Conn. 92, 100 (2004), cert. denied, 544 U.S. 987, 127 S.Ct. 1861, 161 L.Ed.2d 746 (2005); see also State v. Antonio A., 90 Conn. App. 286, 295, cert. denied, 275 Conn. 926 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1189, 126 S.Ct. 1373, 164 L.Ed.2d 81 (2006) (two acts of digital penetration).
Defenses
The affirmative defense of fraudulent misrepresentation is not available under the statute prohibiting sexual intercourse between a person who is between the ages of thirteen and fifteen and a person who is at least two years older. State v. Blake, 63 Conn. App. 536, 539-42, cert. denied, 257 Conn. 911 (2001) (reviewing statutory history); see also State v. Plude, 30 Conn. App. 527, 539-41, cert. denied, 225 Conn. 923 (1993) (mistake of age is no defense).
"[T]he absence of a marital relationship between the defendant and the victim of a sexual assault is not an essential element of the crime. Rather, the existence of a marital relationship can be raised as an exemption or defense to prosecution for sexual assault in the first degree under § 53a-70 (a). . . . Accordingly, a finding of non-culpability based on the 'marital exemption' of § 53a-65 (2) necessarily depends upon proof of the fact that the victim and the defendant were legally married." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Beaulieu, 82 Conn. App. 856, 862 (2004), aff'd in part and rev'd in part on other grounds, 274 Conn. 471 (2005).
Confidentiality of the complainant's name and address
General Statutes § 54-86e provides that the name, address and other identifying information of a victim of sexual assault are confidential. These instructions refer only to "the complainant." The court may use initials or some other identifier when necessary to refer to the complainant.
Rockin Ma
April 20th, 2009, 07:44 PM
I have no idea how many Koa Kents there are in CT
http://www.facebook.com/people/Koa-Kent/552184063#/s.php?k=100000080&id=552184063&sid=ffda4fbe1150beab02fc26b642029068
Kalehue
April 20th, 2009, 09:57 PM
I'm posting this because I lived there for a time as a teen. I was seriously misplaced. I will say the majority of these children are both sexually/physically abused and have HUGE emotional problems which makes this person even more of a piece of shit. This is a place where the kids should for once feel safe after what they have been through in their lives.
No kidding. It's sickening to use a position working with at-risk kids to put yourself in the role of victimizer. I hope they really stick it to this loser.
Rockin Ma
January 17th, 2012, 08:54 PM
Looks like April 2010 he was ultimately convicted of sex assault 4th of a minor
53a-73a(a)1A* Sex 4-Actr>2 Yrs Oldr Vctm<13 D Felony 1 1/28/2009 Guilty Guilty 2/8/2010 $151.00 $0.00
Sentenced: 5 Years Jail, Execution Suspended After 1 Year, Probation 5 Years
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.