State v. Harper, 184 Conn. App. 24

Defendant Marquis J. Harper drove three men to the victim’s home, remained in the car, and later admitted to giving them the ride but denied knowledge of their plan.
Two occupants exited the car masked; one (Blackman) carried a firearm and, during the intrusion, shot the victim in the neck, leaving him paralyzed.
Police recovered a White Sox cap with Blackman’s DNA; co‑participants were arrested and made statements implicating the defendant; defendant initially denied involvement then admitted driving them.
Defendant was charged with conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree and attempt to commit robbery in the first degree as an accessory; court granted acquittal on the conspiracy count for lack of evidence he knew a firearm would be used.
A jury convicted Harper of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree as an accessory; he was sentenced and appealed, raising (1) evidentiary insufficiency (alleged lack of mens rea regarding accomplice’s weapon) and (2) trial court’s refusal to give a requested unanimity instruction concerning reasonable doubt.

Issue	State's Argument	Harper's Argument	Held
Whether conviction as an accessory to attempted first‑degree robbery required proof Harper knew or believed an accomplice would be armed	The statutes and precedent do not require knowledge/intention regarding an accomplice’s possession of a weapon for accomplice liability; mens rea for attempt mirrors the principal’s mens rea	Conviction is invalid without proof he knew or believed an accomplice would be armed; § 53a‑49(a)(2)’s "circumstances as he believes them to be" adds a weapon‑specific mens rea	Affirmed: No additional mens rea about a weapon is required; accomplices may be liable even if they did not know or intend an accomplice would be armed (court followed Supreme Court precedent)
Whether the trial court erred by refusing Harper’s requested jury instruction that unanimity is not required on the nature/source of reasonable doubt	The court’s instructions on reasonable doubt and unanimity, read as a whole, were adequate and accurate; the requested instruction misstated the law	Jurors must be told they need not agree on why they have reasonable doubt; each juror need only agree that reasonable doubt exists even if reasons differ	Affirmed: Requested instruction was inaccurate (it suggested jurors need not be able to articulate a reason for reasonable doubt), unsupported by Connecticut law, and unnecessary given the charge as a whole

State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451 (mens rea for attempt mirrors principal; accomplices can be convicted for an associate’s display of a weapon even without knowledge or intent)
State v. McCalpine, 190 Conn. 822 (rejecting requirement that an accessory intend to possess a deadly weapon)
State v. Harrison, 178 Conn. 689 (elements for accessory to attempted robbery: intent to aid and intent to deprive; did not require accessory to intend weapon possession)
State v. Avila, 223 Conn. 595 (first‑degree robbery under § 53a‑134(a)(2) does not require intent to possess a deadly weapon)
Mills v. Maryland, 486 U.S. 367 (discussed by court as inapposite federal authority regarding unanimity and jury consideration of mitigating factors in capital cases)