State v. Porter
Decision Date | 01 May 2018 |
Docket Number | SC 19818 |
Citation | 328 Conn. 648,182 A.3d 625 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Kenneth PORTER |
Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Jennifer F. Miller, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patrick J. Griffin, state's attorney, and Marc G. Ramia, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Palmer, McDonald, Robinson, D'Auria and Kahn, Js.*
The sole question presented in this appeal is whether a court may look to the evidence presented at trial when determining if a defendant's conviction violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The defendant, Kenneth Porter, appeals1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his judgment of conviction, following a jury trial, of assault of public safety personnel in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167c (a) (1) and interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a–167a.2 State v. Porter , 167 Conn. App. 281, 283–84, 142 A.3d 1216 (2016). The defendant claims that the Appellate Court could review only the charging documents when determining whether his conviction of both charges violated the prohibition on double jeopardy and that it improperly looked to the evidence presented at trial to make that determination. The state counters that State v. Schovanec , 326 Conn. 310, 163 A.3d 581 (2017), permits the review of evidence in double jeopardy analysis for the limited purpose of deciding whether the offenses stem from the same act or transaction, and that it was proper for the Appellate Court to consider evidence in that analysis. We agree with the state that the Appellate Court properly considered the evidence presented at trial and, accordingly, affirm its judgment.
The Appellate Court set forth the following facts. "On May 24, 2010, Brian Donnelly, a patrol officer with the Yale Police Department, heard a police broadcast regarding a domestic dispute involving the defendant. Donnelly responded by proceeding to Winchester Avenue [in New Haven], where he spotted a vehicle matching the broadcast description of the defendant's vehicle. Donnelly followed the vehicle, which in fact belonged to the defendant. After Officer Lester Blazejowski arrived in support, Donnelly stopped in front of the defendant's vehicle at the intersection of Ashmun and Grove Streets. Donnelly and Blazejowski exited their cruisers, approached the defendant's vehicle, and ordered the defendant to put his vehicle in park and to show his hands. The defendant refused to comply and, instead, reached toward the passenger side of the vehicle and then inside his pants. Donnelly thought the defendant was attempting to retrieve a weapon. He ordered the defendant to show his hands, but, instead, the defendant again reached over to the passenger side of the vehicle and then inside his pants.
(Footnote omitted.) State v. Porter , supra, 167 Conn. App. at 284–85, 142 A.3d 1216.
Relevant to this appeal, the amended information charged the defendant in the first count with assault of public safety personnel, and provided that "the defendant ... with the intent to prevent [Donnelly] from performing his duties ... and while [Donnelly] was acting in the performance of his duties ... caused physical injury to [Donnelly] in violation of [ § 53a–167c (a) (1) ] ...." It charged the defendant in the seventh count with interfering with an officer in violation of § 53a–167a, and provided that "the defendant ... obstructed, resisted, hindered and endangered [Donnelly], while in the performance of [his] duties ...." The information alleged that both offenses occurred "on May 24, 2010, at or around 7:23 p.m., at or near Ashmun Street, in the city of New Haven ...." "No bill of particulars was filed ...." State v. Porter , supra, 167 Conn. App. at 288, 142 A.3d 1216.
The Appellate Court additionally set forth the following relevant procedural history. State v. Porter , supra, 167 Conn. App. at 285, 142 A.3d 1216.
In his appeal to the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed a double jeopardy violation for his conviction of both assault of public safety personnel and interfering with an officer. To resolve his claim, that court surveyed Connecticut's double jeopardy jurisprudence to determine if it was permitted to review evidence presented at trial because "[t]he information allege[d] that the two crimes occurred at the same time and place" and, if confined to "the charging document alone, one conviction must [therefore] be vacated." Id., at 289, 142 A.3d 1216. Although the Appellate Court noted that several of its cases had interpreted State v. Goldson , 178 Conn. 422, 423 A.2d 114 (1979), to completely bar evidentiary review during double jeopardy analysis, it concluded that subsequent cases implicitly overruled Goldson , and, as a result, it was obligated to review the evidence in addition to the charging documents. State v. Porter , supra, 167 Conn. App. at 289, 292, 142 A.3d 1216. On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the Appellate Court held that the jury could have concluded "that the two crimes did not stem from the same conduct." Id., at 293, 142 A.3d 1216. As a result, the defendant did not satisfy one of the requirements to establish a double jeopardy violation in the context of a single trial. Id. The Appellate Court therefore affirmed the judgment of conviction. Id., at 297, 142 A.3d 1216. This certified appeal followed.
The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellate Court properly reviewed the evidence presented at trial when determining that the defendant's conviction did not violate double jeopardy.3
The defendant maintains that Goldson proscribes consideration of the evidence in double jeopardy analysis, but the state contends that this court's decision in Schovanec permits a court to look beyond the charging documents when determining if the offenses stem from the same act or transaction. Thus, both parties offer precedent in a manner that appears to be in conflict, and the state goes so far as to suggest that we should overrule Goldson in light of Schovanec if necessary. We conclude that Goldson and Schovanec are consistent because both cases prohibit the review of evidence only with regard to the second step of a two step process for evaluating whether there has been a violation of the prohibition on double jeopardy.
We begin by setting forth the standard of review. (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bernacki , 307 Conn. 1, 9, 52 A.3d 605 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 918, 133 S.Ct. 1804, 185 L.Ed.2d 811 (2013).
"Double jeopardy analysis in the context of a single trial is a [two step] process," and, to succeed, the defendant must satisfy both steps. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. At step two, we "[t]raditionally ... have applied the Blockburger4 test to determine whether two statutes criminalize the same offense, thus placing a defendant prosecuted under both statutes in double jeopardy: [W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not."5 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
Our case law has been consistent and unequivocal as to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ruiz-Pacheco
...provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not." (Footnote altered; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter , 328 Conn. 648, 655, 182 A.3d 625 (2018). In contrast, "[t]he proper double jeopardy inquiry when a defendant is convicted of multiple violations of the same ......
-
Moye v. Warden
...of the same act or transaction." Id. This approach is, of course, no longer good law. As reiterated by our Supreme Court in State v. Porter, supra, 328 Conn. 648, courts must look to the evidence presented at trial and state’s theory of the case to determine whether the two charges stem fro......
-
State v. Jarmon, AC 42357
...analysis under the second step unnecessary." (Citations omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Porter , 328 Conn. 648, 662, 182 A.3d 625 (2018). The defendant was charged in a substitute information with home invasion in violation of § 53a-100aa (a) (1)21 and bu......
-
State v. Ruiz-Pacheco
...but also multiple punishments for the same offense in a single trial." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter , 328 Conn. 648, 654–55, 182 A.3d 625 (2018).5 In analyzing a double jeopardy claim arising in the context of a single trial, we apply a well established two step proce......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...386, 390 (1798)). [170] Id. at 480. [171] Id. at 478 (quoting Perez v. Commissioner, 326 Conn. 357, 377, 163 A.3d 597 (2017)). [172] 328 Conn. 648, 182 A.3d 625 (2018). [173] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167c. [174] Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-167a. [175] State v. Porter, 167 Conn. App. 281, 289, 292,......