State v. Brown
132 Conn. App. 251
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Defendant Antwon Brown and two coconspirators planned robberies of Store 40 (1276 Meriden Rd, Waterbury) and Ideal Package Store (408 Hill St, Waterbury) on Nov 11, 2008.
- Cross informed Brown and Mines of an intended robbery; all three waited in the car while Cross robbed Store 40, then proceeded to the liquor store for a second robbery.
- Brown provided a voluntary statement; he was arrested immediately after confessing; the state consolidated charges into a single substitute information with two counts of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
- Jury convicted Brown on both counts; at sentencing the court declined to merge the two conspiracy convictions into a single offense.
- Brown argues the two convictions violate double jeopardy; appeal challenges whether two conspiracies were separate offenses or a single conspiracy.
- Appellate Court reviews de novo the double jeopardy issue; factual findings about whether there were two separate agreements were upheld as not clearly erroneous.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two conspiracy counts violate double jeopardy | State argues two separate agreements existed. | Brown contends a single conspiracy encompassed both robberies. | No violation; two separate conspiracies affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Ellison, 79 Conn.App. 591 (Conn. App. 2003) (evidence of separate discussions supports separate conspiracies)
- State v. Morris, 49 Conn.App. 409 (Conn. App. 1998) (two-step double jeopardy analysis for same offense)
- State v. Snook, 210 Conn. 244 (Conn. 1989) (burden on defendant to prove prosecutions are for same offense)
- United States v. Korfant, 771 F.2d 660 (2d Cir. 1985) (factors for separate conspiracies include participants, time, and common acts)