the question of whether a conviction under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 265, § 13H, for indecent assault upon a person ove .Stat. § 53-21, does not include a requirement of lack of consent on the part of the child victim, the statute expressly limits its application to children under the age of sixteen, which is the age of consent in Connecticut. See Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-71; see generally State v. Jason B, 248 Conn. at 568, 729 A.2d 760 (in which the Connecticut Supreme Court noted that there is a “significant judicial gloss with respect to § 53-21 [1993] ... to the effect that the act of having sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen years of age was a violation of the statute regardless of whether there was consent by the child”); State v. Plude, 30 Conn.App. 527, 621 A.2d 1342 (<HOLDING>), cert, denied, 225 Conn. 923, 625 A.2d 824
holding that because consent is not a statement and a request for consent is not an interrogation giving consent to search is a neutral fact which has no tendency to show that the suspect is guilty of any crime holding that consent is not a valid defense to hazing holding that consent is not a defense to a violation of  5231 holding miranda violation does not vitiate voluntary consent holding there is no consent as a matter of law where the consent was given under coercion