Page 30 - CLT072720

30 ¦ JULY 27, 2020 CONNECTICUT OPINIONS

SUPREME COURT to meaningfully distinguish the acts such that
they were susceptible of separation into parts,
the court held that the defendant’s assaultive
actions against this victim were part of the
CRIMINAL APPEALS same continuing course of conduct. Therefore,

Court Reversed In Part Criminal the imposition of multiple punishments on the
defendant for this victim violated the double
Judgment Due To Double Jeopardy jeopardy clause. The court affirmed his con-
Violation viction as to his attack on the second victim,
where two or three of the wounds occurred in
rapid succession with the defendant inflicting at
CASE: State of Connecticut v. Ruiz-Pacheco least one. The defendant then walked away, and
COURT: Connecticut Supreme Court
DOC. NO.: SC 20206 then later attacked the second victim a second
time. Here, there was a break in the fighting,
COURT OPINION BY: Ecker and there was an opportunity for the defendant
DATE: July 09, 2020 • PAGES: 18
Defendant was convicted of two counts of first- to reconsider his actions.
degree assault and two counts of first-degree
assault as an accessory on the basis of a joint
physical assault involving defendant and his APPELLATE COURT

brother on two separate victims. Defendant ap-
pealed his conviction on the basis that the Ap-
pellate Court improperly affirmed the judgment ADMINISTRATIVE LAW • TAX
of conviction because he committed only two
assaults, one assault per victim, and therefore Court Affirms Motion To Dismiss For
his conviction of four assaults violated double Failure To Allege Unlawful Act Or
jeopardy. The court agreed with the defendant Omission From Tax Appeals Board
as to one victim’s assault, and therefore the
court reversed in part. The court first addressed
the attack against the first victim. This attack CASE: Godbout v. Attanasio
consisted of a single, uninterrupted fight where COURT: Connecticut Appellate Court
DOC. NO.: AC 42683
the defendant and his brother both stabbed the COURT OPINION BY: Prescott
victim within seconds of each other. There was DATE: July 14, 2020 • PAGES: 19
no evidence of a break in the fight, or any other Plaintiff owned a motor vehicle in Connecti-
intervening event separating one stabbing from cut. In 2012 he filed a complaint with the Free-
the other, which would have given the defen- dom of Information Commission against the
dant a chance to reconsider his actions and for- defendants, who were members of the East
mulate the intent to commit an additional as- Lyme Board of Assessment Appeals, for viola-
sault. Therefore, because there was no evidence tion of the Freedom of Information Act by not

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune