State v. Pond
| Citation | 56 A.3d 714,307 Conn. 933 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Connecticut |
| Decision Date | 27 November 2012 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Terrell Williams POND. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Leonard C. Boyle, deputy chief state's attorney, in support of the petition.
Timothy H. Everett, assigned counsel, Kevin Munn, certified legal intern, and Bryce Petrucelli, certified legal intern, in opposition.
The petition by the state of Connecticut for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 138 Conn.App. 228, 50 A.3d 950, is granted, limited to the following issue:
“Did the Appellate Court properly determine that in order to convict a defendant of conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a–48(a) and 53a–135(a)(2), the state must prove that the defendant conspirator had the specific intent that there would be a display or threat of the use of what was represented to be a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument, even if that specific intent is not required for proof of the underlying crime of robbery in the second degree?”
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ciullo
... ... We ask, instead, whether there is a reasonable view of the evidence that supports the [finder of fact's] verdict of guilty.'' (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pond, 138 Conn. App. 228,234-35, 50 A.3d 950, cert. granted on other grounds, 307 Conn. 933, A.3d (2012). To establish that the defendant unlawfully restrained persons in violation of § 53a-95 (a), the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he ''restrain[ed] another ... ...
-
State v. Herring
... ... See State v. Martin, supra, 286 Conn. 166. In the present case, the defendant did not testify, and, therefore, his credibility is not at issue on appeal. See id., 143 n.11. 6. Justice Borden's concurrence in State v. Pond, 138 Conn. App. 228, 239, 60 A.3d 960, cert. granted, 307 Conn. 933, 66 A.3d 714 (2012), contains a thorough discussion regarding why more evidence is required to convict a defendant as a coconspirator as opposed to as an accessory or a principal. He explains that "if a defendant is charged either ... ...