State v. TinsleyState v. Tinsley
The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the “officially released” date appearing in the opinion.
All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the advance release version of an opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to be considered authoritative.
The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
***********************************************
The defendant, who had been convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, appealed to the Appellate Court from the trial court’s denial of his motion to correct an illegal sentence. The defendant’s conviction stemmed from an incident that occurred while he was watching the victim, a fifteen month old, when the victim’s mother was at work. The defendant had alerted the victim’s mother that something was wrong with the victim and picked her up from her place of employment. While the three of them were driving to the hospital, they were involved in a motor vehicle accident. The victim died at the hospital, and an autopsy revealed bruises on his cheek, one of his legs, and his chest, which occurred shortly before his death, and internal abdominal injuries, including a broken rib and a lacerated liver, the latter of which was determined to be the cause of the victim’s death. Although the defendant ultimately was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree, the operative information had charged him with capital felony, alleging in relevant part that the defendant, ‘‘with the intent to cause the death of [the victim], caused the death of [the victim] . . . by blunt trauma to the abdomen.’’ As to the risk of injury charge, the information alleged in relevant part that the defendant ‘‘did an act likely to impair the health of [the victim] . . . by inflicting multiple trauma to his face, head, chest, and abdomen and thereby causing: laceration of the liver, internal bleeding in the abdomen, fracture of the tenth right rib, and multiple contusions of the face, head, chest, and abdomen.’’ In his motion to correct, the defendant claimed that his sentence imposed for manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to correct. The Appellate Court determined that, when a defendant claims that his conviction includes a lesser included offense, the court does not merely compare the elements of each offense under Blockburger v. United States (284 U.S. 299) but, instead, asks whether it is possible to commit the greater offense, ‘‘in the manner described in the information,’’ without having first committed the lesser offense. Accordingly, the Appellate Court concluded that, even though risk of injury was not a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree under Blockburger, insofar as each offense required poof of an element that the other did not, it was a lesser included offense as charged by the state in the information because it was not possible for the defendant to have committed manslaughter in the first degree by inflicting blunt trauma to the victim’s abdomen without also impairing the health of the victim by inflicting trauma to his abdomen. On the granting of certification, the state appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the defendant’s convictions of risk of injury to a child and manslaughter in the first degree were the same offense for double jeopardy purposes, as that court improperly considered the facts alleged in the information rather than confining its analysis to the statutory elements of the offenses, and, accordingly, this court reversed the judgment of the Appellate Court and remanded the case with direction to affirm the trial court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to correct: the Appellate Court improperly conflated the cognate pleadings approach, by which courts determine whether a defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him when a lesser included offense instruction has been requested, with the Blockburger test, which protects against cumulative punishments and under which two distinct statutory provisions constitute the same offense only if each provision requires proof of a fact that the other does not; moreover, although the language of the charging documents is relevant to whether the statutory elements of each offense are the
Argued April 1, 2021—officially released August 27, 2021*
Procedural History
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of capital felony and risk of injury to a child, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford and tried to the jury before Barry, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree and of risk of injury to a child, from which the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Lavery, C. J., and Schaller and Zarella, Js., which affirmed the trial court’s judgment; thereafter, the court, Schuman, J., denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence, and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, DiPentima, C. J., and Bright and Devlin, Js., which reversed the trial court’s judgment, and the state, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Reversed; judgment directed.
Melissa L. Streeto, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Sharmese L. Hodge, state’s attorney, Gail P. Hardy, former state’s attorney, and John Fahey, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellant (state).
Naomi T. Fetterman, for the appellee (defendant).
ROBINSON, C. J. The sole issue in this certified appeal is the extent to which a court should consider the facts alleged by the state in the charging documents when determining whether a crime is a lesser included offense of another, rather than confining its analysis to the elements of the statutes at issue, under Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299, 52 S. Ct. 180, 76 L. Ed. 306 (1932). The state appeals, upon our grant of its petition for certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the judgment of the trial court, which denied the motion to correct an illegal sentence filed by the defendant, Darrell Tinsley, on the basis of its conclusion that the defendant’s convictions of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of
The record reveals the following relevant facts and procedural history, aptly set forth by the Appellate Court in its opinion. ‘‘[Despite having] an unstable relationship, [the defendant and the victim’s mother] cohabited in a one bedroom apartment along with the [fifteen month old] victim . . . . During the course of the adults’ relationship, individuals who knew the victim noticed a marked change in his behavior when he was in the presence of the defendant. At such times, the victim was timid, withdrawn and afraid of the defendant. The defendant’s attitude toward the victim ranged from indifference to dislike. When [the victim’s mother] was no longer able to avail herself of professional child care, the defendant sometimes took care of the victim while [the victim’s mother] worked.
‘‘Prior to his death, the victim was in good health. On December 8, 1996, between 8 and 8:30 a.m., the defendant drove [the victim’s mother] to her place of employment. According to [the victim’s mother], there
‘‘When he arrived at the medical center, the victim was in critical condition because he was not breathing and had little heart activity. The victim died when resuscitation efforts failed. An autopsy revealed bruises on the victim’s right cheek, left leg and chest, which an associate medical examiner from the [O]ffice of the [C]hief [M]edical [E]xaminer determined occurred shortly before the victim’s death. The injuries were inconsistent with an automobile accident, a twelve inch fall into a bathtub, cardiopulmonary resuscitation or bumping into a fire door, which were explanations offered by the defendant. The victim also suffered significant internal injuries, namely, multiple fresh cranial hemorrhages, a broken rib and a lacerated liver that caused three quarters of his blood to enter his abdominal cavity. According to the associate medical examiner, the victim’s liver was lacerated by blunt trauma that occurred within [one] hour of death and was the cause of death.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 304–306.
‘‘The state charged the defendant with capital felony in violation of
Specifically, the court stated: ‘‘ ‘It . . . seems to me entirely possible that the fatal blows to the ribs, liver, and abdomen could have occurred from a separate blow that was interrupted perhaps by a minute or so before or after trauma was inflicted to the child’s face and
The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, claiming that ‘‘his conviction and punishment for manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury arose from the same transaction and that risk of injury is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree, as charged in this matter, in violation of his right to be free from double jeopardy.’’ Id. The Appellate Court agreed with the defendant. Specifically, the court concluded that, despite risk of injury not being a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree under the Blockburger test, it was nevertheless a lesser included offense as charged in the information in this case. Id., 325. Accordingly, the Appellate Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case for further proceedings. Id., 326. This certified appeal followed.
Before turning to the parties’ claims, we set forth the applicable standard of review and background principles governing the analysis of double jeopardy claims. ‘‘A defendant’s double jeopardy claim presents a question of law, over which our review is plenary. . . . The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution provides: [N]or shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. The double jeopardy clause [applies] to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. . . . This constitutional guarantee prohibits not only multiple trials for the same offense, but also multiple punishments for the same offense in a single trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, 328 Conn. 648, 654–55, 182 A.3d 625 (2018).
‘‘Double jeopardy analysis in the context of a single trial is a [two step] process, and, to succeed, the defendant must satisfy both steps. . . . First, the charges must arise out of the same act or transaction [step one]. Second, it must be determined whether the charged crimes are the same offense [step two]. Multiple punishments are forbidden only if both conditions are met. . . . At step two, we [t]raditionally . . . have applied the Blockburger test to determine whether two statutes criminalize the same offense, thus placing a defendant prosecuted under both statutes in double jeopardy: [W]here the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of two distinct statutory provisions, the test to be applied to determine whether there are two offenses or only one, is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’’ (Citations omitted;
‘‘Our case law has been consistent and unequivocal’’ that the second step of Blockburger ‘‘is a technical one and examines only the statutes, charging instruments, and bill of particulars as opposed to the evidence presented at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Porter, supra, 328 Conn. 656; accord State v. Bernacki, 307 Conn. 1, 9, 52 A.3d 605 (2012), cert. denied, 569 U.S. 918, 133 S. Ct. 1804, 185 L. Ed. 2d 811 (2013). When conducting this analysis, ‘‘we are concerned with theoretical possibilities, and do not focus on the evidence presented.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mezrioui, 26 Conn. App. 395, 403–404, 602 A.2d 29, cert. denied, 224 Conn. 909, 617 A.2d 169 (1992).
Although it is well settled that, under Blockburger, a court may look to the charging documents to determine whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another, at issue in this appeal is the extent to which the particular facts alleged within the charging documents are relevant to that analysis. The state challenges the Appellate Court’s conclusion that, ‘‘[when] the defendant claims that his or her conviction includes a lesser included offense, we employ a different analysis than the traditional Blockburger comparison of the elements of each offense. . . . ‘The test for determining whether one violation is a lesser included offense in another violation is whether it is possible to commit the greater offense, in the manner described in the information or bill of particulars, without having first committed the lesser.’ ’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) State v. Tinsley, supra, 197 Conn. App. 313. The Appellate Court cited to a series of cases from both this court and the Appellate Court that have included the language, ‘‘in the manner described in the information,’’ when considering whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another, namely, State v. Miranda, 260 Conn. 93, 125, 794 A.2d 506, cert. denied, 537 U.S. 902, 123 S. Ct. 224, 154 L. Ed. 2d 175 (2002), State v. Greco, 216 Conn. 282, 292, 579 A.2d 84 (1990); State v. Goldson, supra, 178 Conn. 426, State v. Bumgarner-Ramos, 187 Conn. App. 725, 749, 203 A.3d 619, cert. denied, 331 Conn. 910, 203 A.3d 570 (2019), and State v. Flynn, 14 Conn. App. 10, 17–18, 539 A.2d 1005, cert.
The parties dispute whether the Appellate Court correctly determined that the facts alleged by the state in the information are determinative of the double jeopardy inquiry under Blockburger. The state claims that the court should consider only the statutory elements of each offense and that two crimes do not become greater or lesser included offenses by virtue of the specific facts alleged by the state in the information. In response, the defendant argues that the Appellate Court correctly determined that the two offenses, as described in the information, are the same offense, regardless of their differing statutory elements. We agree with the state and conclude that, under the Blockburger test, manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child are not greater and lesser included offenses because each has a statutory element the other does not, regardless of the facts alleged in the information. Accordingly, the defendant’s conviction of both offenses did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.
At the center of the parties’ dispute and the Appellate Court’s conclusion is the language ‘‘in the manner described in the information.’’ The issue before us is whether this language alters the Blockburger test and requires a court to consider the elements of the offense within the specific factual scenario alleged in the charging documents. At the outset, we recognize that ‘‘in the manner described in the information’’ is language that has appeared, in the double jeopardy context, under two common instances in which a court must determine whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another. A comparison of those two instances highlights how they have been conflated, and we take this opportunity to clarify the appropriate double jeopardy analysis under Blockburger.
The first instance in which a court must determine whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another, in the context of double jeopardy, is the ‘‘cognate pleadings approach.’’ State v. Tomlin, 266 Conn. 608, 618, 835 A.2d 12 (2003). The cognate pleadings approach is used to determine whether a defendant has received constitutionally adequate notice of the charges against him when a lesser included offense instruction has been requested. See id., 617–18. ‘‘A defendant is entitled to an instruction on a lesser [included] offense if, and only if . . . [among other conditions] it is not possible to commit the greater offense, in the manner described in the information or bill of particulars, without having first committed the lesser . . . .’’4 (Emphasis added.) State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576, 588, 427 A.2d 414 (1980); see also State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 62, 301 A.2d 547 (1972) (‘‘to require an instruction on a lesser included offense, the lesser offense must not require any element which is not needed to commit the greater offense in the manner alleged in the information or the bill of particulars’’).
Although the cognate pleadings approach bears some relation to the double jeopardy analysis, it is, by definition, distinct from the Blockburger test that a court engages in to decide if being put to jeopardy on a lesser offense bars a later prosecution on the greater offense or if the conviction of two offenses in a single trial essentially punishes a defendant for a single crime. See State v. Greco, supra, 216 Conn. 292 (Blockburger test is distinct analysis from test evaluating jury instructions). In contrast to the cognate pleadings approach, when the court seeks to determine whether a defendant’s conviction of multiple crimes violates his right against double jeopardy under Blockburger, it is well settled that ‘‘the test . . . is whether each provision requires proof of a fact which the other does not.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 291; accord State v. John, 210 Conn. 652, 695, 557 A.2d 93, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 824, 110 S. Ct. 84, 107 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1989), and cert. denied sub nom. Seebeck v. Connecticut, 493 U.S. 824, 110 S. Ct. 84, 107 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1989); State v. Wright, 197 Conn. 588, 593, 500 A.2d 547 (1985).
Subsequent federal and sister state precedent, along with the United States Supreme Court’s own ‘‘decisions applying [Blockburger’s] principle reveal . . . [that] the [c]ourt’s application of the [Blockburger] test focuses on the statutory elements of the offense. If each requires proof of a fact that the other does not, the Blockburger test is satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in the proof offered to establish the crimes.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 785 n.17, 95 S. Ct. 1284, 43 L. Ed. 2d 616 (1975); see Gore v. United States, 357 U.S. 386, 389, 78 S. Ct. 1280, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1405 (1958); American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 788–89, 66 S. Ct. 1125, 90 L. Ed. 1575 (1946); see also United States v. Dixon, 509 U.S. 688, 696, 113 S. Ct. 2849, 125 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1993) (‘‘[in] both the multiple punishment and multiple prosecution contexts, this [c]ourt has concluded that [when] the two offenses for which the defendant is punished or tried cannot survive the ‘same-elements’ test, the double jeopardy bar applies’’); United States v. DeCarlo, 434 F.3d 447, 455–56 (6th Cir. 2006) (‘‘[t]he [d]ouble [j]eopardy [c]lause is not violated merely because the same evidence is used to establish more than one statutory violation if discrete elements must be proved in order to make out a violation of each statute’’). The purposes of the two tests highlight a key distinction between the analyses. The Blockburger test protects ‘‘against cumulative punishments [and] is . . . designed to ensure [only] that the sentencing discretion of the courts is confined to the limits established by the
We acknowledge that, under both the cognate pleadings approach and the Blockburger test, the language of the statutes under which the defendant is charged, as well as the charging documents, are relevant. See State v. Greco, supra, 216 Conn. 292. The Appellate Court, however, did more than examine the charging documents to determine the statutory elements of each offense, as is required under Blockburger. Instead, the court relied on the specific factual manner in which the defendant’s offenses were described in the information: ‘‘Focusing our analysis on the theoretical possibilities, rather than the evidence, we cannot discern a scenario in which the defendant could have caused the death of the fifteen month old victim by blunt trauma to the abdomen without also impairing the health of the victim by inflicting trauma to his abdomen. Stated differently, it was not possible for the defendant to commit the homicide offense, in the manner described in the information, without first having committed risk of injury to a child.’’ (Emphasis added.) State v. Tinsley, supra, 197 Conn. App. 324. Therefore, the Appellate Court improperly conflated the cognate pleadings approach with the Blockburger analysis because the cognate pleadings approach, unlike the Blockburger test, ‘‘does not insist that the elements of the lesser offense be a subset of the higher offense. It is sufficient that the lesser offense have certain elements in common with the higher offense . . . . [In addition], the relationship between the offenses is determined not by a comparison of statutory elements in the abstract, but by reference to the pleadings in the case.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Tomlin, supra, 266 Conn. 618. Essentially, by its definition, the cognate pleadings approach is inconsistent with the well established Blockburger test, which, by its own terms, is limited to considering only the elements of the statutes and the charging documents.6
The defendant argues that, in State v. Tomlin, supra, 266 Conn. 608, this court rejected the Blockburger analysis when determining whether one offense is a lesser included offense of another in favor of the cognate pleadings approach. We disagree. In Tomlin, this court considered whether, under the circumstances of that case, the trial court had properly instructed the jury that manslaughter was a lesser included offense of murder. Id., 627–28. As we discussed previously in this opin-
The defendant also points to this court’s statement in State v. Bletsch, 281 Conn. 5, 28, 912 A.2d 992 (2007), that ‘‘[t]he Blockburger test . . . requires that we look to charging instruments for the facts the state has alleged to satisfy the statutory elements.’’ We disagree with the defendant’s characterization of Bletsch because this court’s reference to the facts alleged in the information in that case was to better ascertain under which portion of the statutes the defendant was charged. The defendant in Bletsch alleged that ‘‘one cannot engage in sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen . . . without either having contact with her intimate parts or without subjecting the victim to contact with that person’s intimate parts . . . and that sexual intercourse with a child under sixteen necessarily will impair the child’s morals.’’ Id., 28. This court considered the facts alleged in the information, not to position the elements within the facts of the charged offense, as the Appellate Court did in the present case, but to consider all hypothetical scenarios that would prove one offense and not the other under the statutory elements. This court concluded that ‘‘it is possible to have contact with the victim’s intimate parts, such as her breasts, without engaging in sexual intercourse. Consequently, it was possible to prove each offense in the manner charged in the substitute information without necessarily proving the other offense.’’ Id., 29. Therein lies the distinction. In Bletsch, this court referenced the information to ascertain all possible scenarios in which one crime could be committed without the other. In contrast, the defendant in the present case asks us to limit all hypothetical scenarios only to the one that is described in the information, namely, that manslaughter of a minor child cannot occur without risk of injury to that child. Such analysis would alter the emphasis Blockburger places on the statutory elements, and we decline to do so.
We recognize that both this court and the Appellate Court have used the phrase in ‘‘the manner described in the information’’ within various Blockburger inquiries. Such references appear to have led to significant confusion regarding, and ultimately conflation of, the cognate pleadings approach and the Blockburger test. Illustrating this confusion, the Appellate Court concluded that, ‘‘[when] the defendant claims that his or her conviction includes a lesser included offense, we employ a different analysis than the traditional Blockburger comparison of the elements of each offense.’’ State v. Tinsley, supra, 197 Conn. App. 313. To support this conclusion, the court relied on three Connecticut cases, namely,
The inclusion of ‘‘in the manner described in the information’’ has not, and cannot, alter the application of the Blockburger test. To illustrate this point, we briefly review a series of cases that contain the phrase ‘‘in the manner described in the information’’ or similar language, including those cases referenced by the Appellate Court.
In State v. Miranda, supra, 260 Conn. 93, this court concluded that assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child ‘‘both require proof of elements that the other does not. Consequently, it is possible to prove one offense in the manner charged in the information without necessarily proving the other offense.’’ (Emphasis in original.) Id., 126. This court referenced only the statutory elements required to prove each offense. See id. The information was relevant in identifying the charges against the defendant and the elements the state had to prove. See id. Similarly, in Greco, this court concluded that, because ‘‘there are no elements of first degree robbery and first degree burglary [that] are not also elements of felony murder when the felony murder count alleges ‘robbery and burglary’ as the predicate offenses, these offenses constitute the ‘same offense’ as the felony murder charge under the Blockburger test.’’ State v. Greco, supra, 216 Conn. 292. Therefore, the information was relevant to the court’s analysis insofar as it identified the predicate offenses for felony murder. See id.; see also State v. Goldson, supra, 178 Conn. 426–27 (concluding that it is impossible to transport narcotics without possessing narcotics); State v. Bumgarner-Ramos, supra, 187 Conn. App. 751 (‘‘[c]onsidering the theoretical possibilities . . . and not the evidence, as [a court is] required to do in the second step of the Blockburger analysis, [the court is] aware of no conceivable circumstance in which the defendant could have caused [the victim’s] death without also having caused her serious physical injury’’); State v. Raymond, supra, 30 Conn. App. 611–12 (considering language of information and concluding ‘‘that the information alleges two different intents’’); State v. Flynn, 14 Conn. App. 10, 17–18 (considering elements of charges and whether each provision requires proof of additional fact that other does not), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 891, 109 S. Ct. 226, 102 L. Ed. 2d 217 (1988). Thus, the ‘‘manner described in the information’’ is relevant in determining whether one crime is a lesser included offense of another only to the extent the reviewing court is consulting the information in order to determine whether it alleges distinct elements for each offense, rather than to determine the particular factual predicate of the case. Indeed, this court does not always consult the information when it is evident that each offense contains an element the other does not. See, e.g. State v. McCall, 187 Conn. 73, 91, 444 A.2d 896 (1982) (concluding that risk of injury to child is not lesser included offense of sexual assault in second degree because ‘‘[e]ach requires proof of an element not required by the other’’).
The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Illinois v. Vitale, 447 U.S. 410, 418, 100 S. Ct. 2260, 65 L. Ed. 2d 228 (1980), further confirms that the statutory elements, rather than the factual allegations, drive the Blockburger inquiry. In Vitale, the defendant argued that, under Illinois law, it was impossible to convict him of manslaughter without also proving his reckless failure to slow his vehicle because the state alleged that the victim’s death was caused by his failure to brake. See id., 418. The court disagreed and concluded that ‘‘[t]he point is that if manslaughter by automobile does not always entail proof of a failure to slow, then the two offenses are not the ‘same’ under the Blockburger test. The mere possibility that the [s]tate will seek to rely on all of the ingredients necessarily included in the traffic offense to establish an element of its manslaughter case would not be sufficient to bar the latter prosecution.’’7 Id., 419. Therefore, because the well established Blockburger test focuses on the elements of each offense rather than the facts alleged in the information, we now consider the elements that the state must prove for manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child.
In the present case, the defendant, although initially charged with capital felony, was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of
The defendant was also convicted of risk of injury to a child in violation of the act prong of
The statutory elements of manslaughter in the first degree and risk of injury to a child indicate that each offense contains an element that the other does not. Manslaughter in the first degree under
Finally, the defendant argues that we should treat his convictions of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of
The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to affirm the judgment of the trial court.
In this opinion the other justices concurred.
* August 27, 2021, the date that this decision was released as a slip opinion, is the operative date for all substantive and procedural purposes.
‘‘The ‘act prong’ refers to the language . . . that provides: ‘or does any act likely to impair the health or morals of any such child . . . shall be guilty of a class C felony . . . .’ ’’ (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Owens, 100 Conn. App. 619, 635–36 n.12, 918 A.2d 1041, cert. denied, 282 Conn. 927, 926 A.2d 668 (2007).