State v. Ragalis

Citations

• 235 Conn. App. 538

Syllabus

Convicted of various crimes in connection with a motor vehicle accident involving a pedestrian, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant claimed, inter alia, that his conviction of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle and assault in the second degree, arising from a single occurrence, violated the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution and the Connecticut constitution. Held: The defendant could not prevail on his claim that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle and assault in the second degree, as the state adduced ample evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude that the state had proven beyond a reason- able doubt that the defendant was the operator of the vehicle that struck the victim, that the defendant's intoxication caused the victim's injuries, and that the victim suffered serious physical injuries. The defendant's conviction of assault in the second degree with a motor vehicle and assault in the second degree did not violate double jeopardy because the defendant failed to establish a clear legislative intent to treat the relevant statutes (§§ 53a-60 (a) (3) and 53a-60d) as one offense for double jeopardy purposes pursuant to Blockburger v. United States (284 U.S. 299), as the statute and the information on each charge at issue required proof of elements that the statute and the information on the other charge did not, neither statute refers to the other, each statute sets a different penalty, and the statutes have distinct purposes, and the fact that the same evidence was used to establish that the defendant committed each crime was irrele- vant. The trial court's supplemental instruction to the jury in response to a note it received regarding whether ''serious physical injury'' to the victim must be long-term did not mislead the jurors, as the court answered the jury's question and that answer was correct in law, the court did no