State v. Porter, 167 Conn. App. 281

On May 24, 2010, Yale police officers encountered Kenneth Porter after a domestic-dispute broadcast; Porter refused commands, reached inside his car and pants, and resisted removal.
During force to extract and handcuff him, Porter swung, kicked, attempted to stab an officer with a screwdriver, and caused scrapes and swelling to Officer Brian Donnelly.
During the struggle Porter removed a bag of marijuana from his pants and put it in his mouth; he was subdued with pepper spray and later spat out the drug.
A jury convicted Porter of two counts of assault of public safety personnel (one relating to Donnelly), possession offenses, and interfering with an officer (count alleging obstruction/resistance of Donnelly).
Porter appealed, arguing (1) double jeopardy because interfering with an officer is a lesser-included offense of assault of an officer, and (2) the trial court erred in refusing a requested jury instruction that interfering is a lesser included offense of assault.
The court affirmed: it examined the evidence and concluded the convictions could rest on separate acts (assaultive conduct v. attempted swallowing of drugs), and found the lesser-included request was untimely and inadequately presented.

Issue	State's Argument	Porter's Argument	Held
Whether convictions for assault of an officer and interfering with an officer violate double jeopardy	The acts charged could be distinct; reviewing evidence can show separate factual bases for each conviction	The two counts arise from same act/transaction and, under Blockburger, interfering is a lesser included offense so dual convictions violate double jeopardy	No double jeopardy violation — court reviewed the evidence and concluded the jury reasonably could find different conduct supported each conviction (assaultive struggle vs. swallowing marijuana)
Whether the trial court erred in refusing to instruct that interfering with an officer is a lesser included offense of assault	The request was made belatedly after charge; the record did not clearly present the specific legal/factual basis for the instruction	Requested lesser-included instruction; trial court should have instructed jury on lesser included offense	Denial affirmed — request was raised too late and without adequate specificity to satisfy Whistnant first-prong; thus no entitlement to the instruction

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes test for determining whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640 (2011) (courts may examine evidence to determine whether convictions arose from distinct acts in single-trial double jeopardy claims)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (establishes criteria for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576 (1980) (sets four-part test for when lesser-included-offense instruction must be given)
State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1 (addresses Blockburger analysis and legislative intent exceptions)