SC20213 - State v. Cody M. (Criminal; Harassment; Whether Defendant Subject to Double Jeopardy on Conviction of Two Counts of Violating Protective Order; Whether Jury Properly Instructed that "Harass" Means to "Trouble, Worry or Torment."; "The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether multiple convictions for violation of a standing criminal protective order, arising from a series of statements made during a court hearing by the defendant, Cody M., to the person protected by the order, violate the constitutional protection from double jeopardy. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, rendered after a jury trial, convicting the defendant of two counts of criminal violation of a standing criminal protective order in violation of General Statutes § 53a-223a, one count of threatening in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2015) § 53a-62 (a) (2), and one count of threatening in the second degree in violation of § 53a-62 (a) (3). State v. Meadows, 185 Conn. App. 287, 290, 197 A.3d 464 (2018). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, and the defendant now claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that (1) his conviction of two counts of violating a standing criminal protective order did not violate his constitutional right against double jeopardy, and (2) the trial court's jury instruction correctly defined the term "harassing" with respect to the penalty enhancement under § 53a-223a (c) (2). We conclude that the defendant's conviction of two counts of violating a standing criminal protective order did not violate his right against double jeopardy and that any possible instructional error in the trial court's definition of "harassing" was harmless, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court.")