Summary
The Connecticut Supreme Court held that, in a single-trial double jeopardy analysis, courts may consider trial evidence and the state's theory of the case when determining whether charged offenses arose from the same act or transaction. However, at the second step, determining whether the offenses are the same under the Blockburger test, courts must confine review to the statutes, charging instruments, and bill of particulars. Applying this framework, the court affirmed the defendant's convictions because assault of public safety personnel and interfering with an officer arose from distinct conduct.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a court may consider evidence presented at trial, in addition to the charging documents, when determining at the first step of a single-trial double-jeopardy analysis whether two offenses arose from the same act or transaction.
- Whether Porter's convictions for assault of public safety personnel and interfering with an officer arose from the same act or transaction and therefore violated double jeopardy.
Holdings
- At the first step of the double-jeopardy inquiry, a court may consider the evidence presented at trial and the state's theory of the case, together with the information and any bill of particulars, to determine whether the offenses arose from the same act or transaction.
- The assault and interfering convictions did not arise from the same act or transaction because the assault conviction was supported by Porter's physical attacks on the officers, whereas the interfering conviction was supported by his separate attempt to swallow marijuana.
Key quotations
“First, the charges must arise out of the same act or transaction.” (at 662)
“At step one, "it is not uncommon that we look to the evidence at trial and to the state's theory of the case"; State v. Schovanec, supra, 326 Conn. at 327, 163 A.3d 581; in addition to "the information against the defendant, as amplified by the bill of particulars."” (at 662)
“In applying the Blockburger test, "we look only to the information and bill of particulars—as opposed to the evidence presented at trial—to determine what constitutes a lesser included offense of the offense charged."” (at 662)
“The defendant in the present case was not charged with multiple offenses for the same conduct under a theory of temporal severability.” (at 634)
Factual background
Police officers stopped Porter's vehicle in New Haven after receiving a broadcast concerning a domestic dispute. Porter resisted the officers' attempts to remove and handcuff him, kicked and attempted to stab Officer Donnelly with a screwdriver, and injured Donnelly during the ensuing struggle. During that struggle, Porter separately removed a bag of marijuana from his pants and attempted to swallow it; the state relied on that conduct to support the interfering-with-an-officer charge.
Procedural history
Following a jury trial, Porter was convicted of two counts of assault of public safety personnel, possession of a narcotic substance, and interfering with an officer. The trial court imposed a total effective sentence of twenty years of incarceration, execution suspended after fourteen years, followed by five years of probation. The Appellate Court affirmed the convictions relevant to this appeal, and the Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether the Appellate Court properly considered trial evidence in its double-jeopardy analysis.