State v. Underwood, 142 Conn. App. 666

Defendant Earl M. Underwood was convicted after a jury trial of multiple offenses including two counts of attempted first-degree robbery and related conspiracy, burglary, assault, and weapons offenses.
At trial, defendant requested an accomplice instruction focusing on Mazurowski’s testimony; the court gave such instruction for Johnson but denied it for Mazurowski.
Mazurowski testified that she disposed of the gun used in the crime and acknowledged a pending charge; other witnesses testified that the shooting occurred during the attempted robbery.
The jury heard evidence including eyewitness testimony, forensic evidence, hotel surveillance, and the defendant’s alleged admission to being at the hotel with Johnson.
Defendant argued that double jeopardy barred convictions for two counts of attempted first-degree robbery arising from the same incident.
The court merged or vacated certain convictions and addressed double jeopardy and conspiracy issues on post-verdict review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an accomplice instruction was required for Mazurowski	Underwood asserts the jury should have been cautioned about Mazurowski’s credibility as an accomplice.	Underwood argues the testimony of Mazurowski was sufficiently connected to the offenses to warrant an accomplice instruction.	No error; court properly denied the instruction for Mazurowski; general credibility instructions sufficed.
Whether two counts of attempted first-degree robbery violate double jeopardy	Consecutive counts arose from the same act but each required proof of a fact the other did not.	Convictions for two attempts to commit robbery should be barred as multi-punishment for the same offense.	No double jeopardy violation; Blockburger analysis shows separate elements and no clear legislative intent to bar multiple punishments.

State v. Arroyo, 292 Conn. 658 (Conn. 2009) (standard for reviewing jury instructions as a whole)
State v. Moore, 293 Conn. 781 (Conn. 2009) (accomplice credibility instruction when warranted)
State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106 (Conn. 2004) (factors for determining when to give accomplice instruction)
State v. Ortiz, 252 Conn. 533 (Conn. 2000) (conditions for requiring credibility instructions regarding accomplices)
State v. Gentile, 75 Conn. App. 839 (Conn. App. 2003) (accomplice evidence and credibility considerations)
State v. Bozelko, 119 Conn. App. 483 (Conn. App. 2010) (whether accomplice instruction is required based on evidence)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (Golding four-prong test for unpreserved constitutional error)