Hartford - The state appellate court was wrong to overturn the convictions of a Bridgeport man charged with sexually assaulting a severely disabled woman, a prosecutor told the state Supreme Court on Monday in a case that has frustrated people with disabilities and their advocates.

Richard Fourtin was sentenced in 2008 to six years in prison after a Superior Court jury convicted him of attempted second-degree sexual assault and fourth-degree sexual assault involving the woman, who was then 25. But the appellate court reversed the convictions in 2009 and ordered the lower court to acquit Fourtin, saying the prosecution didn't prove the woman was "physically helpless" as defined by both charges.

The statutes say a physically helpless person is someone who is "unconscious or for any other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an act."

The disabled woman, known only as LK in court proceedings to protect her identity, has cerebral palsy, is mentally disabled and cannot talk or walk. But she can communicate in other ways including gesturing, kicking, biting, scratching, groaning and screeching, court documents say.

Fourtin's lawyer, Robert Byron, told the high court Monday that because the woman can communicate in other ways, his client shouldn't have been convicted of crimes against a physically helpless person. He also said that the woman testified during the trial by pointing to letters and words on a "communication board."

"There's no evidence that she was physically helpless," Byron said. "The jury had no basis to make (that) inference."

It's not clear when the Supreme Court will issue its decision.

State prosecutor Susann Gill told the seven justices that evidence presented at trial showed the woman has a very difficult time communicating. Three doctors testified that they tried to communicate with the woman but were unsuccessful. Gill said the jury, which is the finder of facts under the law, determined the woman was physically helpless.

Gill also said it was unclear whether the woman understood what sex and sexual assault are.

A staff member at the woman's day care program discovered the sexual assault allegations in February 2006. Authorities say the worker asked the woman what was wrong because she looked aggravated and scared, and she used gestures and pointed to parts of a communication board to explain what happened to her.

After the hearing, Gill said the state's Division of Criminal Justice asked state lawmakers the past two years to improve the language dealing with disabled victims in the criminal laws, but no bills made it to the governor's desk.

"I think the wording of both statutes has proved problematic," Gill said, referring to the two charges of which Fourtin was convicted.

The appellate court in its 3-0 decision also noted that the Fairfield County State's Attorney's Office chose not to charge Fourtin with a sexual assault crime against victims who are "mentally defective" to the extent that they are unable to consent to sexual acts.

The woman didn't attend Monday's arguments. Two disabled women who attended declined to comment.

The 51-year-old Fourtin, who remains in prison during the appeals process, also wasn't at the hearing.

Advocates for the disabled submitted a legal brief to the Supreme Court criticizing the appellate court's decision and saying the case had broad implications.

"This case is, in fact, about the need for individuals with disabilities to have a voice in the criminal justice system," the brief said. "It is about the need for the criminal justice system and the judicial system to recognize that individuals with disabilities who are victims of sex crimes will not come forward if their voices are not heard or respected."

The brief was submitted by the state Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, ARC of Connecticut and the Developmental Disabilities Council of Connecticut. They also insisted that the appellate court's decision effectively imposed a requirement on the woman in Fourtin's case that she physically resist her assailant by kicking or scratching to communicate her lack of consent to sexual acts - a requirement not imposed on any rape victim by state law.

The advocates wrote that the Supreme Court "has the opportunity to take a step towards changing the perception that the judicial system is not a place that respects crime victims with disabilities."