State v. Blaine, AC 36832
Decision Date | 06 February 2018 |
Docket Number | AC 36832 |
Citation | 180 A.3d 622,179 Conn.App. 499 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jayevon BLAINE |
Katherine C. Essington, for the appellant (defendant).
Adam E. Mattei, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state's attorney, and Howard S. Stein, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Sheldon, Prescott and Beach, Js.
This case returns to us on remand from our Supreme Court with direction to consider the claim of plain error raised by the defendant, Jayevon Blaine, in light of State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 782, 155 A.3d 209 (2017).1 The defendant previously appealed from the judgment of conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48 and 53a–134 (a) (2).2 We held in our prior opinion that the waiver of a claim of instructional error pursuant to State v. Kitchens , 299 Conn. 447, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), precluded review of the claim of plain error.
State v. Blaine , 168 Conn. App. 505, 517–19 and n.5, 147 A.3d 1044 (2016), remanded in part, 325 Conn. 918, 163 A.3d 618 (2017). In State v. McClain , supra, at 815, 155 A.3d 209, our Supreme Court held that a Kitchens waiver did not preclude a claim of plain error. We now consider the defendant's claim that the trial court committed plain error by incorrectly instructing the jury on the requisite intent to find him guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. We conclude that the record does not support the claim that the pertinent instruction constituted plain error. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts are relevant to this appeal.3 After the killing of the victim, Kevin Soler, on Bretton Street in Bridgeport, the defendant was arrested and charged with murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54a (a), attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–49 and 53a–134 (a) (2), felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a–54c, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a–48 and 53a–134 (a) (2). As we stated in our prior opinion: "[F]our people ... together with the defendant, were charged with, inter alia, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
(Footnote added.) State v. Blaine, supra, 168 Conn. App. at 508–10, 147 A.3d 1044. Soler was later found dead by the Bridgeport police. Id., at 507, 147 A.3d 1044.
The jury found the defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree but not guilty of the other charges. On appeal to this court, the defendant claimed that (1) there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree,5 (2) the court erred in denying his request for a jury instruction on third-party culpability, and (3) the court erred in failing to instruct the jury according to the principles set forth in State v. Pond, 138 Conn. App. 228, 50 A.3d 950 (2012), aff'd, 315 Conn. 451, 108 A.3d 1083 (2015). See State v. Blaine, supra, 168 Conn. App. at 507, 517, 147 A.3d 1044. In affirming the trial court's judgment, we concluded that there was sufficient evidence to sustain the defendant's conviction and that any error resulting from the court's failure to provide a third-party culpability instruction was harmless. Id., at 507, 517, 147 A.3d 1044. As to the defendant's third claim, that there was plain error under Pond , we concluded that plain error relief was unavailable. Id., at 518, 147 A.3d 1044.
The defendant then sought and was granted certification to appeal by our Supreme Court on his claim of plain error, and the case was remanded to this court with direction to consider the defendant's claim in light of McClain . See State v. Blaine, 325 Conn. 918, 163 A.3d 618 (2017). The only issue before us on remand is whether the trial court's instruction to the jury regarding the requisite intent for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree constituted plain error.
Two elements must be satisfied in order to support a conclusion that a judgment must be reversed on the basis of plain error. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 812, 155 A.3d 209.
(Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.
An appellant "cannot prevail ... unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.; see also State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 307, 972 A.2d 691 (2009). (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 813–14, 155 A.3d 209.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Ruiz-Pacheco
...does not satisfy the second prong required for reversal of the judgment pursuant to the plain error doctrine. See State v. Blaine , 179 Conn. App. 499, 510, 180 A.3d 622, cert. granted on other grounds, 328 Conn. 917, 181 A.3d 566 (2018). "Because [a] party cannot prevail under plain error ......
-
State v. Blaine
...required the jury to find that the defendant had agreed that a participant would be armed with a deadly weapon." State v. Blaine , 179 Conn. App. 499, 510, 180 A.3d 622 (2018). The Appellate Court also held that, even if the instructions were erroneous, there was no manifest injustice neces......
-
State v. Blaine
...BLAINESupreme Court of Connecticut.Decided March 28, 2018The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 179 Conn.App. 499, 180 A.3d 622 (2018), is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court's failur......