State v. Blaine, 179 Conn. App. 499

Defendant Jayevon Blaine was charged with murder, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, felony murder, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree after a planned robbery of a drug dealer resulted in the victim’s death; jury convicted Blaine only of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
Four coconspirators testified they and Blaine agreed to rob the dealer, that Blaine would carry a 9mm handgun, and that a weapon would be used; Blaine denied involvement.
Trial court instructed the jury on robbery in the first degree (including the element that a participant be armed with a deadly weapon) and separately instructed that, to convict of conspiracy, the jury must find Blaine specifically intended to commit robbery in the first degree.
Blaine argued on appeal that the court committed reversible (plain) error by failing to instruct explicitly that he must have specifically intended/agreed that a participant be armed with a deadly weapon (relying on State v. Pond).
This court initially rejected plain error review due to a waiver rule, but the Connecticut Supreme Court remanded for reconsideration in light of State v. McClain, which clarified plain error review is not barred by Kitchens waiver.
On remand, this court held any instructional omission was at most debatable and, even if plain error, was not manifestly unjust given strong record evidence that Blaine agreed to the robbery and that a weapon would be used; judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Blaine)	Held
Whether trial court committed plain error by failing to instruct that conspiracy requires specific intent that a participant be armed with a deadly weapon	Jury instruction on conspiracy tracked the substantive crime of robbery (which included the armed element); any omission was not plain and did not produce manifest injustice	Court failed to tell jury it had to find Blaine specifically intended/agreed that a participant be armed with a deadly weapon (per Pond) — omission required reversal under plain error	Court affirmed: instruction arguably required specific intent because armed-element was included in the robbery definition; any error was debatable and, in any event, not manifestly unjust given overwhelming record evidence of an agreement to use a weapon

State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (2017) (plain error doctrine review available despite Kitchens waiver)
State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451 (2015) (conspiracy requires specific intent as to every element of the underlying offense)
State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (2005) (conspiracy requires specific intent as to elements of underlying crime; instructional omission harmless when overwhelming evidence of intent)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for unpreserved constitutional claims reviewed on appeal)