State v. Tinsley, 340 Conn. 425

Defendant (Darrell Tinsley) was charged with capital felony for causing the death of a 15‑month‑old by blunt abdominal trauma; jury convicted him of manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child.
Sentenced to consecutive terms (20 years for manslaughter, 10 years for risk of injury); defendant filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence claiming double jeopardy.
Appellate Court reversed the trial court, holding that risk of injury was a lesser included offense of manslaughter "in the manner described in the information," so the dual convictions violated double jeopardy.
State petitioned for certification; Supreme Court granted review limited to whether the Appellate Court properly used the information’s factual allegations in the Blockburger analysis.
Supreme Court held the Appellate Court erred: Blockburger focuses on statutory elements (with charging documents used only to identify alleged elements), not the particular factual manner alleged; manslaughter and risk of injury each contain an element the other does not, so both convictions do not violate double jeopardy.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether courts may rely on the specific factual allegations in the charging information ("in the manner described") when applying the Blockburger same‑elements test for double jeopardy	State: Blockburger requires comparison of statutory elements; facts in the information may only be used to identify which statutory elements were charged, not to collapse distinct elements into one offense	Tinsley: The Appellate Court correctly used the information’s factual description to show manslaughter necessarily included risk of injury as charged, so dual convictions violate double jeopardy	Court held for the State: Blockburger focuses on statutory elements; the information’s facts cannot convert two distinct statutory offenses into the same offense; manslaughter (§53a‑55(a)(1)) and risk of injury (§53‑21) each require proof of an element the other does not, so no double jeopardy

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (U.S. 1932) (establishes the same‑elements test for double jeopardy)
Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410 (U.S. 1980) (clarifies that factual allegations do not control the Blockburger analysis if statutory elements permit independent proof)
Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (U.S. 1975) (explains Blockburger focuses on statutory elements despite overlap in proof)
United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688 (U.S. 1993) (reiterates same‑elements inquiry in multiple punishment/prosecution contexts)
State v. Greco, 216 Conn. 282 (Conn. 1990) (distinguishes Blockburger statutory‑elements test from cognate‑pleadings/jury‑instruction considerations)
State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93 (Conn. 2002) (uses statutory elements and charging instrument to identify which elements the state must prove)
State v. Tomlin, 266 Conn. 608 (Conn. 2003) (explains cognate pleadings approach for lesser‑included instruction is distinct from Blockburger)
State v. Bletsch, 281 Conn. 5 (Conn. 2007) (consults information to determine how statutory elements are charged, not to fix a single factual predicate for Blockburger)