State v. Schovanec
| Decision Date | 18 July 2017 |
| Docket Number | SC 19851 |
| Citation | 163 A.3d 581,326 Conn. 310 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Frank SCHOVANEC |
326 Conn. 310
163 A.3d 581
STATE of Connecticut
v.
Frank SCHOVANEC
SC 19851
Supreme Court of Connecticut.
Argued April 4, 2017
Officially released July 18, 2017
David V. DeRosa, for the appellant (defendant).
Marcia A. Pillsbury, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state's attorney, and Sharmese L. Hodge, assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Rogers, C.J., and Palmer, Eveleigh, McDonald, Espinosa, Robinson and D'Auria, Js.*
EVELEIGH, J.
The defendant, Frank Schovanec, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of identity theft in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–129d, credit card
theft in violation of General Statutes § 53a–128c(a), illegal use of a credit card in violation of General Statutes § 53a–128d(2), and larceny in the sixth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–125b.1 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court incorrectly (1) precluded him from arguing third-party culpability and denied his corresponding request for a jury instruction, and (2) sentenced the defendant on the charges of identity theft, illegal use of a credit card, and the lesser included offense of larceny in the sixth degree because these convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy contained within the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution.2 We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, are relevant to this appeal. On October 31, 2013, the victim was the room parent for her child's class at Middle Gate Elementary School (school) in the
town of Newtown.3 That morning, she put her child on the bus and went to work in the city of New Haven, where she worked as an accountant. The victim unlocked the door to her office and worked there until 2:30 p.m. There were no other security measures, such as key cards or badges, required for entrance to her office. After the victim left work, she traveled to the school in order to attend a Halloween party for her child's class. The victim brought bags of supplies for the party and, due to traffic, was running a few minutes late. She entered the classroom, placed her unzipped purse on a table located to the right of the door, and immediately began helping with the children and the party.
The defendant and his wife, Lori Schovanec, were also at the Halloween party because they had a child in the same classroom. The victim saw the defendant and his wife in the classroom, but was not formally introduced to them. Prior to the party, the victim had never seen the defendant and his wife. At the end of the party, the victim noticed that the defendant and his wife were lingering around the table by the door where she had placed her purse.
Later that evening, as the victim and her husband were leaving to take their children out trick or treating, the victim discovered that her wallet was not in her purse. She contacted a manager at her place of employment to see if the wallet was either in her office or an adjacent parking lot. The manager did not find the wallet. When she arrived back home after trick or treating, the victim searched her house for the wallet, but did not find it. The victim then checked her accounts online
and discovered that someone was making charges on a credit card that had been in her wallet. She called the bank, cancelled the card, and informed the bank that someone was using the card without her permission. The victim then called and cancelled all of the other bank and credit
cards that she had in her wallet. The victim's driver's license, a health savings account credit card, and insurance cards were also in her wallet at the time. The driver's license contained the victim's name and address.
The victim last remembered having her wallet when she used a credit card at a restaurant in the town of Bethel on October 30, 2013, the night before the Halloween party. She checked at the restaurant, but her wallet was not there.
The victim then reported her wallet stolen to the Newtown Police Department. Because the victim believed that she had either lost her wallet or that it had been stolen at the restaurant, the Newtown Police Department instructed the victim to contact the Bethel Police Department. The victim then shared documents with the Bethel Police Department showing that the first unauthorized use of her credit cards had taken place at a gas station on South Main Street in Newtown. All of the subsequent unauthorized charges took place at locations in the city of Waterbury.
The victim was familiar with that particular gas station because it is located near the school. The victim subsequently went to the gas station and spoke to the owner. She requested, and obtained, a copy of the receipt for the transactions in which her credit card had been used. The receipts indicated that her credit card was used on October 31, 2013, at 3:39 p.m. Upon seeing that the time on the receipt was minutes after school had been released that day, the victim began to think that her wallet must have been taken when she
was at the school. Thereafter, the victim reported the theft of her wallet and the unauthorized use of her credit card to the Newtown Police Department because the first unauthorized use of the card had been at the gas station in Newtown.
Robert Haas, a police officer employed at the Newtown Police Department, investigated the victim's complaint regarding the theft of her wallet and the unauthorized use of her credit card. At trial, Haas testified that the gas station is located a short distance from the school, and that it would take about two minutes to drive from the school to the gas station. He obtained the original receipt for an unauthorized charge of $76 from the owner of the gas station. He confirmed that the time on the receipt was 3:39 p.m. He obtained the school's visitor log for October 31 and confirmed that the defendant and his wife were listed as being at the school that day. The evidence contained within the record shows that many parents were listed on the visitor log for that day because of the multiple Halloween parties at the school.
Haas interviewed two employees of the gas station who were working on October 31, Kenneth Urban and Hakan Kundraci. At trial, Urban testified that he knew the defendant because the defendant used to work at the gas station. Urban further testified that had seen the defendant pull into the gas station in the late afternoon of October 31, 2013, and that the defendant had swiped a credit card at the pump to pay for gasoline. Urban testified that the defendant and a female companion entered the store and asked for a carton of cigarettes, which was unusual because the defendant usually only bought one or two packs at a time. Urban then asked Kundraci to assist the defendant because he was helping a customer outside. According to Urban's testimony, because cartons of cigarettes were not typically
stocked at the store, customers could only purchase individual packs.
Kundraci had worked at the gas station for about ten years. He gave a statement to police about the incident that occurred at the gas station on October 31, involving
the defendant. Kundraci testified that the defendant purchased packs of cigarettes, but that he could not recall how many packs. After reviewing his statement to police, Kundraci testified that the defendant had purchased eight packs of cigarettes. Kundraci testified that the defendant and the woman were in a green minivan. Kundraci also testified that the defendant would sometimes pay with cash, sometimes with a credit card, and sometimes with a store charge, meaning he was permitted to pay the gas station back later.
There were other charges made on the victim's credit cards in Waterbury. Officer Haas, however, did not investigate these transactions. Those charges amounted to approximately $800. Haas testified that, because those transactions involved the same card, he contacted the loss prevention department in one of the stores where the card had been used, the Burlington Coat Factory at the Waterbury Mall. The loss prevention officer told Haas that the videotape from the store's security camera system showed that the victim's credit card was used by three Hispanic males on November 1, 2013. There was no investigation by the Waterbury Police Department into the charges on the victim's credit card. Haas did not view the videotape himself. The loss prevention officer did not testify at the trial. Neither party attempted to enter the videotape into evidence.
The defendant requested that the court include a jury...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ashby
...if the proposed instructions are reasonably supported by the evidence." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Schovanec , 326 Conn. 310, 318–19, 163 A.3d 581 (2017). This court has previously stated that "the very standards governing the admissibility of [third-party] culpability evi......
-
State v. Leniart
...the murder that the defendant sought—and the trial court gave—a third-party culpability charge to the jury. See State v. Schovanec , 326 Conn. 310, 319, 163 A.3d 581 (2017).The defendant's cross-examination of Allain did not simply attack the truthfulness of his testimony, the clarity of hi......
-
State v. Porter
...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 s......
-
State v. Jarmon, AC 42357
...entered the home and were committing the larceny." (Emphasis in original.) Id., at 855, 204 A.3d 49 ; see also State v. Schovanec , 326 Conn. 310, 328–29, 163 A.3d 581 (2017).In the present case, the evidence allows the defendant's crimes to be separated into parts. While the defendant and ......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...281, 289, 292, 142 A.3d 1216 (2016). [176] (Internal quotations omitted.) Id. at 293. [177] 178 Conn. 422, 423 A.2d 114 (1979). [178] 326 Conn. 310, 163 A.3d 581 (2017). [179] Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). [180] Porter 328 Conn. at 656. [181] Schovanec, 326 Conn. at 326......