State v. Flores, 17 A.3d 1025

On August 13, 2004, Flores, Vega, and Marrero entered Garay's Hartford apartment at about 6 a.m. dressed in dark clothing with ski masks.
They restrained Garay and her boyfriend Ortiz during a search of the room for valuables, took Garay's jewelry, car keys, apartment keys, and cell phone, and fled in Garay's two cars.
Garay testified Flores knew him personally; he removed his mask and told her they would not hurt her after she identified him.
Ortiz was assaulted and threatened; at one point a gun was placed in Ortiz's mouth, and he was hit by Marrero during an attempted escape.
Garay’s two cars—a Buick Riviera and a Buick LeSabre—were driven away; later, Garay learned one car could be located via a call from Marrero.
Flores was convicted of kidnapping first degree, along with robbery first degree, burglary second degree, larceny third degree, and related conspiracy counts, receiving an aggregate sentence of 16 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Salamon instruction was required	Flores argues Salamon required a specific restraint inquiry.	Flores contends the trial court failed to instruct as Salamon requires.	Reversible error; remand for new trial on kidnapping.
Conspiracy intent standard	State contends proper intent instruction was given.	Flores claims the court's treatment of § 53a-3 (11) misled the jury on specific intent.	Instructions adequate; conspiracy verdicts require specific intent to commit the underlying crimes.
Robbery victim identification	State argues no need to specify which victim was robbed when multiple victims exist.	Flores asserts error for not identifying Garay vs. Ortiz as the robbery victim.	No error; single-count robbery with multiple victims permitted; jury could find guilt if either victim was robbed.
Larceny counts and vehicle specificity	State asserts counts sufficiently separate; jury instructed to treat counts separately.	Flores claims failure to specify which count related to which vehicle could conflate counts.	Harmless error; jury was instructed to treat counts separately and Information specified each vehicle.
Burglary unanimity	State contends any shortcoming would be harmless given concurrent convictions.	Flores argues lack of unanimity instruction on which underlying crime was intended to be committed violated unanimity.	Harmless; jury unanimously found robbery and larceny related to the burglary, making error non-harmful.

State v. Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (Conn. 2008) (determines kidnapping requires independent restraint beyond the underlying crime)
State v. DeJesus, 260 Conn. 466 (Conn. 2002) (standard for determining whether Salamon-type instruction was harmless error)
State v. Leggett, 94 Conn.App. 392 (Conn. App. 2006) (limits on reading entire definition of intent in certain crimes)
State v. Palangio, 115 Conn. App. 355 (Conn. App. 2009) (conspiracy instructions and specific intent considerations)
State v. McGee, 124 Conn.App. 261 (Conn. App. 2010) (upholding conspiracy instruction language under proper context)