192 Conn.App. 353
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Victim accompanied defendant to his apartment on Oct. 19–20, 2016; defendant confined, assaulted, repeatedly choked her in living room and bedroom over several hours, and took her phones; victim escaped early morning and reported the crimes.
- Jury acquitted on sexual‑assault charge but convicted defendant of strangulation (2d), assault (3d), unlawful restraint (1st), and threatening (2d).
- Substitute information alleged all offenses occurred at ~2:00 a.m. in the defendant’s apartment; trial evidence showed a multi‑hour course of conduct (victim reported being held ~9 hours).
- Postverdict, defendant moved for judgment of acquittal on assault and unlawful restraint under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑64bb(b) (prohibiting conviction for strangulation and assault/unlawful restraint "upon the same incident"); trial court denied the motion and imposed consecutive sentences.
- Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the court (not the jury) impermissibly decided whether offenses were "upon the same incident," (2) sentencing on all counts violated § 53a‑64bb(b) and double jeopardy, and (3) exclusion of prior police call evidence violated confrontation/presentation rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Watson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court (rather than jury) may decide if offenses were "upon the same incident" under § 53a‑64bb(b) | Court may resolve that question as a matter of law/fact; prior authority supports judicial determination | It was a factual question for the jury; Apprendi/Golding implications | Court may decide this issue; Morales controls — no constitutional violation |
| Whether convictions/sentences for assault and unlawful restraint violated § 53a‑64bb(b) | Evidence showed assault and unlawful restraint were discrete acts separate from strangulation | Information alleged same time/place; crimes arose from same incident so § 53a‑64bb(b) bars multiple convictions/sentences | Evidence demonstrated separate acts (distinct injuries, separate restraint conduct); § 53a‑64bb(b) did not bar punishment |
| Whether multiple punishments violated Double Jeopardy (same act/transaction test) | State: offenses arose from different acts/transactions | Defendant: offenses arose from same act/transaction (single course of conduct) | First prong (same act) not met — offenses arose from separate acts; double jeopardy claim fails |
| Whether exclusion of prior May 2017 police call violated confrontation/right to present a defense | Prior call was not probative of impeachment (no recantation, different incident, remote) | Call showed pattern of false reports/recantations and was relevant to credibility | Exclusion was proper: evidence not relevant for impeachment; no constitutional violation |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Morales, 164 Conn. App. 143 (Conn. App. 2016) (panel held court may determine whether offenses are "upon the same incident" under § 53a‑64bb(b))
- State v. Miranda, 142 Conn. App. 657 (Conn. App. 2013) (interpretation of § 53a‑64bb(b): punishable separate strangulation requires assault/unlawful‑restraint be based on conduct wholly separate from strangulation)
- State v. Urbanowski, 163 Conn. App. 377 (Conn. App. 2016) (assault and strangulation constituted separate acts when they produced distinct injuries)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (fact increasing penalty beyond statutory maximum must be submitted to jury)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2010) (procedural waiver rule for unchallenged jury instructions)