conduct as being directed at Roman’s counsel are insufficiently supported in the record. See State v. Kneeland, 552 A.2d 4, 5 (Me.1988) (appellant has burden to insure that record is adequate to allow effective review by appellate court of claims of error or abuse of discretion). Accordingly, Roman’s rights to a fair and impartial trial were not violated. The entry is: Judgment affirmed. All concurring. 1 . We reject at the outset Roman’s claim that his conviction is not supported by sufficient evidence. Based on the evidence introduced at trial, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the offense charged. State v. Barry, 495 A.2d 825, 826 (Me.1985). 2 . See, e.g., State v. Rubino, 564 A.2d 59, 61 (Me.1989) (<HOLDING>); State v. Boone, 563 A.2d 374, 376 (Me.1989)
holding that past instances of physical contact between parties in sexual assault case admissible to show relationship intent opportunity and defendants attraction to alleged victim holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim holding defendants prior conviction for assault related to sexual abuse of a minor even though it did not require an act of sexual abuse because it required intent to commit sexual abuse  and such a mens rea demonstrate the offense was one relating to sexual abuse holding that attempted sexual abuse is a specific intent crime holding evidence of outofstate instances of abuse admissible in child sexual abuse case to show intent opportunity and relationship between defendant and victim