State v. Grant, 87 A.3d 1150

Victim Maurice Johnson, a marijuana dealer, is killed after an armed ambush in the Legend’s Social Club parking lot in Bridgeport on Jan. 31, 2008; Rose was with him and witnesses the crime.
Grant allegedly arranged the meeting by transporting an armed assailant and luring the victim into the defendant’s car where the ambush occurred.
Rose identified Grant in a police photo array after the arrest; an arrest warrant issued and Grant was apprehended in New York on Feb. 5, 2008.
Grant was charged by substitute information with conspiracy to commit murder and murder; the jury found him guilty of conspiracy to commit murder and as an accessory and coconspirator under Pinkerton liability.
The trial court sentenced Grant to 20 years for conspiracy and 45 years for murder, to run concurrently, for an effective 45-year sentence; conviction and sentence were affirmed on appeal.
Key procedural posture includes challenges to sufficiency of evidence, jury instruction on agreement, and denial of a mistrial based on jury misconduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Conspiracy to commit murder sufficiency	State argues evidence shows agreement and overt acts.	Grant contends insufficient proof of agreement or overt act.	Sufficiency supported; reasonable inference of agreement and overt act established.
Murder as an accessory sufficiency	State maintains dual intent proven by aiding the principal and intent to kill.	Grant argues lack of proof of intent to aid and to kill.	Sufficient evidence to prove murder as an accessory beyond a reasonable doubt.
Conspiracy instruction on agreement element	State asserts instructional alignment with law; no misinstruction.	Grant claims instruction misled by allowing mere knowledge to satisfy agreement.	No reversible error; charge viewed as a whole did not mislead the jury; Golding standard applied.
Mistrial for jury misconduct			Claim not reviewable as induced error; court affirmed after curative instruction and alternate juror seating.

State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640 (2011) (sufficiency review standards for conspiracy and accessory liability)
State v. Green, 62 Conn. App. 217, 774 A.2d 157 (2001) (conspiracy may be inferred from actions of coconspirators)
State v. Rosado, 134 Conn. App. 505, 39 A.3d 1156 (2012) (conspiracy can be inferred from presence at critical stages)
State v. Lopez, 52 Conn. App. 176, 726 A.2d 620 (1999) (luring victim into location constitutes overt act in furtherance of conspiracy)
State v. Taylor, 132 Conn. App. 357, 31 A.3d 872 (2011) (instruction on conspiracy agreement consistent with model instructions; later certiorari status noted)