State v. Blaine, 334 Conn. 298

In September 2009, a group arranged a drug deal robbery; during the encounter a man was shot and killed. A firearm recovered from a bedroom where the defendant lived was later linked to the shooting.
Jayevon Blaine (defendant) was charged with murder, felony murder, attempt to commit first‑degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit first‑degree robbery; the jury acquitted on the homicide and attempt charges but convicted on conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
First‑degree robbery under § 53a‑134(a)(2) requires, among other elements, that the defendant or another participant be "armed with a deadly weapon." Conspiracy requires specific intent to commit the substantive crime.
Defendant appealed, arguing the trial court failed to instruct the jury (per State v. Pond) that he must have specifically intended that a participant be armed with a deadly weapon; Appellate Court affirmed, then reconsidered after remand under State v. McClain and again affirmed.
The Connecticut Supreme Court reviewed whether the omitted, express weapon‑intent instruction was plain error; it held the instructions read as a whole sufficiently required the jury to find the defendant intended the weapon element, so no plain error and the conviction was affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether failure to instruct explicitly that defendant must have specifically intended that a participant be armed (weapon element) was plain error	State: No—law unsettled at trial; charge, read as a whole, required finding of intent for robbery in the first degree, and coconspirators testified weapon use was contemplated	Blaine: Yes—under Pond the state must prove specific intent for every element (including weapon); omission may have misled jury and requires reversal or modification	Held: No plain error. Although better practice to state the weapon‑intent expressly, the jury charge as a whole required the jury to find the weapon element was intended; conviction affirmed
If instruction error existed, proper remedy (modified judgment vs new trial)	State: If reversal required, remedy should be a new trial before a properly instructed jury	Blaine: Remedy should be modification to a conviction for lesser included offense (conspiracy to commit third‑degree robbery)	Held: Court did not reach remedy because it found no plain error

State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451 (Conn. 2015) (conspiracy requires specific intent that every element of the substantive offense be accomplished)
State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (Conn. 2017) (implicit waiver does not bar plain error review of instructional errors)
State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 (Conn. 2013) (explains plain error doctrine and its limited, extraordinary scope)
State v. Jamison, 320 Conn. 589 (Conn. 2016) (describes the two‑pronged plain error test: obvious error and manifest injustice)
State v. Greene, 274 Conn. 134 (Conn. 2005) (discusses remedies when jury instructions omit elements of the offense)