State v. Wright, 319 Conn. 684

In July 2010 defendant Brian Wright approached a 10‑year‑old boy (S) in a park, led him into woods, hugged and squeezed him sexually, grabbed his backpack when the child fled; police were called and defendant was arrested.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of a minor under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a‑70c(a) (subdivisions (1) and (6)), plus related offenses; sentenced to lengthy consecutive terms.
Subdivision (1) of § 53a‑70c(a) requires proof of kidnapping or illegal restraint; subdivision (6) requires proof the defendant was not known to the victim. Both require the underlying predicate offense and that the victim be under thirteen.
Defendant argued his two convictions under § 53a‑70c(a)(1) and (6) amount to multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of double jeopardy. He sought review under State v. Golding because he did not preserve the claim at trial.
The state conceded Blockburger is satisfied (each subdivision requires proof the other does not) and argued the Blockburger presumption that separate punishments are permissible was not rebutted by clear contrary legislative intent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Whether convicting and sentencing under both § 53a‑70c(a)(1) and (6) for the same act violates double jeopardy	Blockburger is satisfied, creating a presumption that the statutes define separate offenses; defendant fails to show clear contrary legislative intent to rebut that presumption	§ 53a‑70c’s structure and language (and legislative history) show the seven subdivisions are alternative aggravating factors to enhance punishment for a single underlying offense, so multiple convictions/punishments are barred	Affirmed: No double jeopardy violation. Blockburger satisfied and no clear legislative intent to treat subdivisions as a single punishable scheme

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (test for whether two offenses are the same for double jeopardy purposes)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (procedure for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Woodson, 227 Conn. 1 (same‑statute subdivisions may create separate offenses absent contrary legislative intent)
State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81 (Blockburger creates only a rebuttable presumption; clear contrary legislative intent can control)
State v. Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489 (upholding multiple convictions under different subdivisions of a statute for the same transaction)