reliving their experiences at a new trial; the practical problems of memory loss and unavailability of witnesses after much time has elapsed; and the availability of other sanctions for such misconduct.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Spencer, supra, 275 Conn. 190-91. At the outset, we note that many of the interests to be considered in determining whether to exercise our supervisory power militate against exercising that power. First, the defendant was not seriously prejudiced by the prosecutor’s misconduct. See part II of this opinion. Second, based on E’s testimony that he experienced shame and difficulty in relating these allegations, a new trial very likely would expose him to additional emotional trauma. See State v. James G., 268 Conn. 382, 424, 844 A.2d 810 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Third, a new trial likely would pose problems
holding in aggravated sexual assault case that testimony regarding psychological trauma suffered by child victim and its physical manifestations properly admitted holding evidence of sexual assault relevant to show defendants motive in kidnapping victim holding that merger did not apply because sexual assault was not a lesser included offense of seconddegree kidnapping involving sexual assault recognizing the purpose of missouris child victim witness protection law sec 491675 et seq as an attempt to minimize the emotional and psychological trauma to the alleged child victim recognizing trauma that new trial would likely bring to victim of child sexual assault