State v. Apodaca, 33 A.3d 224

Apodaca was convicted of felony murder, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and two counts of robbery in the first degree; he appealed on four claims.
On the fifth day of trial, juror A.S. was sick; the court excused her for adequate cause and replaced her with an alternate.
The court instructed that felony murder could be established via Pinkerton vicarious liability for the underlying robbery; robbery could serve as the predicate felony.
The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts and a total sentence of 60 years.
The defendant challenged the midtrial juror excusal, the conspiracy instructions/response to a jury request, and the conspiracy instruction's potential misdirection; the court rejected each claim and affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was A.S. properly excused for cause and could the court reconsider?	Apodaca contends the dismissal was improper and not revisable.	Apodaca argues the court should have allowed reconsideration; improper discharge is structural error.	Yes; excusal for adequate cause proper; no structural error.
May Pinkerton liability support felony murder predicated on underlying robbery?	State argues vicarious liability for underlying robbery is valid; robbery suffices as predicate.	Apodaca contends the felony murder instruction should not permit this basis absent intent to kill.	Yes; Pinkerton liability valid; robbery may predicate felony murder.
Did the court's response to the jury's conspiracy instruction request comply with Practice Book § 42-27 and fairness principles?	State contends the court adequately addressed the request without misinstruction.	Apodaca asserts insufficient lay terms and potential misguidance.	Yes; court's response complied and fairness preserved.
Was the conspiracy instruction constitutionally misleading by suggesting first- or third-degree conspiracy as basis for count four?	State maintains charge read as a whole correctly directed the jury to first-degree conspiracy as the basis.	Apodaca argues misleading ambiguity could misdirect conviction.	No; reading the charge as a whole showed proper focus on first-degree conspiracy.

State v. Murray, 254 Conn. 472 (2000) (discharge of alternates and recall post-discharge discussed)
State v. Pare, 253 Conn. 611 (2000) (formal status of a jury and recall after departure discussed)
State v. Coltherst, 263 Conn. 478 (2003) (Pinkerton liability and felony-murder predicate analysis)
State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32 (1993) (adopted Pinkerton liability as matter of policy)
State v. Patterson, 276 Conn. 452 (2005) (firearm-use enhancement and Pinkerton applicability discussed)
State v. Diaz, 237 Conn. 518 (1996) (general principles of vicarious liability in conspiracy context)
State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338 (2004) (charge review and reasonable juror guidance standard)