eventually drove the victim to her home. The victim did not inform anyone about the incident. Two weeks after the first incident, the defendant again drove the victim to the vacant apartment and, over her protestations, had sexual intercourse with her. On October 13, 1993, the victim was approached by the defendant at the Waterbury town green. The defend ant asked the victim to accompany him while he delivered pizza. The victim, having ran away from home that day, agreed to accompany him. Later that evening, the defendant drove the victim to a nearby motel, where he registered for a room, listing himself as the occupant. Once in the motel room, the defendant, over the protestations of the victim, again engaged in sexual intercourse with her. After the October 13, 1993 inc d 854 (1994) (<HOLDING>); State v. Martin, 38 Conn. App. 731, 735-39,
holding that doctrine does not violate due process holding that doctrine does not violate equal protection holding missouri transfer rule did not violate equal protection holding that the cap does not violate equal protection holding transfer rule did not violate federal equal protection