State v. Schovanec, 163 A.3d 581

Victim attended a school Halloween party on Oct. 31, 2013, left an unzipped purse on a table, and later discovered her wallet missing and unauthorized credit card charges.
Receipts showed two charges at a nearby Newtown gas station minutes after the party; two gas station employees who knew Schovanec identified him making purchases (including multiple cigarette packs).
Loss prevention at a Waterbury store reported video of three unidentified Hispanic males using the victim’s card on Nov. 1, 2013; the investigating Newtown officer testified about that report but did not view the tape or further investigate Waterbury charges.
Defendant Frank Schovanec was tried and convicted of identity theft (3rd degree), credit card theft, illegal use of a credit card, and larceny (6th degree); he later pleaded guilty to persistent larceny offender enhancement.
At trial the court allowed counsel to reference testimony about the Waterbury videotape but refused a requested jury instruction and argument on third‑party culpability (as to the three unidentified males).
On appeal Schovanec argued (1) wrongful exclusion of a third‑party culpability instruction/argument and (2) double jeopardy from convicting him of identity theft, illegal use of a credit card, and larceny (6th degree).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court abused its discretion by refusing a third‑party culpability instruction and disallowing related argument	State: evidence did not directly connect the unidentified Waterbury actors to the Newtown theft/charges, so instruction unnecessary	Schovanec: Waterbury videotape evidence created a direct connection suggesting the three males committed the offenses, so instruction and argument were warranted	Court: No abuse of discretion; no direct connection between the three males and the charged Newtown acts, so instruction/argument properly denied (though counsel could mention testimony)
Whether convictions for identity theft (3rd), illegal use of a credit card, and larceny (6th) violate double jeopardy	State: charges could be based on distinct acts/factual bases (wallet and contents; specific card use; gas/cigarette purchases), so no double jeopardy	Schovanec: convictions overlap and arise from the same act/transaction, producing multiple punishments for the same offense	Court: No double jeopardy; prosecution could reasonably rely on separate factual bases (theft of wallet and contents, particular unauthorized card use, separate thefts like gasoline/cigarettes), so first prong of Blockburger not satisfied

State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (discusses standard for when requested jury charges must be given; relevance/threshold for third‑party culpability evidence)
State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786 (explains direct‑connection requirement for third‑party culpability evidence)
State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (admitted third‑party evidence where another person recently had motive/opportunity to commit the crime)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (establishes test whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
State v. Wright, 319 Conn. 684 (applies Blockburger framework and explains analysis steps and legislative intent considerations)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (sets standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)