State v. Brown, 11 A.3d 663

May 23, 2005: Jamar Williams drives defendant to Colebrook Street; an armed intruder passes a gun to Brown and Brown drives off.
Hall, Jackson (Chi) and France plan to rob the victim on Colebrook Street; France carries a handgun.
The victim arrives with two half brothers; France and Hall/ Jackson approach; victim is shot by Brown after a struggle over the gun.
Brown and coconspirators pursue the victim; Brown shoots the victim in the head and flees with Jackson in a car.
Defendant is charged with felony murder, murder, robbery in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, carrying a pistol without a permit, and criminal possession of a firearm.
Jury convicts Brown on all seven counts; trial court imposes a total sentence of fifty-five years; on appeal, Brown challenges sufficiency of evidence, double jeopardy, and jury instructions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports robbery in the first degree	Brown argues insufficiency to prove taking of property	State’s evidence, including Hall/Jackson testimony, suffices	Yes; sufficient evidence supports robbery conviction
Whether robbery and attempted robbery sentencing violates double jeopardy	Convictions for completed and attempted robbery arise from same transaction	Should merge and vacate one sentence	No; separate transactions support dual convictions and sentences
Whether Pinkerton liability instruction and intent definitions were proper	Pinkerton foreseeability and specific intent improperly defined	Instruction flawed, possibly reversible	Pinkerton instruction treated as harmless; no reasonable likelihood of misdirection; Golding claim preserved for Pinkerton issue inapplicable as to intent
Waiver/Golding review of instructional errors	Golding review should apply to unpreserved errors	Waiver not clearly established due to record gaps	Defendant waived as to intent instruction; not waived as to Pinkerton instruction; Golding review applied to Pinkerton claim

State v. Bruno, 293 Conn. 127 (2009) (sufficiency review and reasonable-doubt standard)
State v. Morgan, 274 Conn. 790 (2005) (probative force of circumstantial evidence; cumulative evidence standard)
State v. Calonico, 256 Conn. 135 (2001) (elements of larceny and robbery)
State v. Lytell, 206 Conn. 657 (1988) (robbery authorizes punishment for each completed act during larceny)
State v. Tweedy, 219 Conn. 489 (1991) (robbery punished per completed act in a series of forcible conduct during larceny)
State v. Gould, 241 Conn. 1 (1997) (double jeopardy and lesser-included offenses; Gould discussed merger)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) ( Golding review for unpreserved constitutional errors)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (waiver of unpreserved instructional claims when defense reviewed final charge)
State v. Martin, 285 Conn. 135 (2008) (Pinkerton liability framework; foreseeability standard)
State v. Lawrence, 282 Conn. 141 (2007) (unpreserved claims and Golding analysis)
State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (2008) (definition of intent and juror guidance)