State v. Jahsim T., 165 Conn. App. 534

On March 8, 2013, the minor defendant (Jahsim T.) and friends were recorded by a market surveillance camera; the camera had video but no audio. The defendant used a cell phone in the store and left shortly before a nearby pizza deliveryman was assaulted and robbed.
A Pizza Hut order placed to 319 East Avenue led to a robbery: masked assailants (one with a shotgun) beat the deliveryman, took money and items, and fled. The defendant was not shown at the robbery scene.
Police matched a recovered cell phone to the Pizza Hut call and arrested another participant who had items from the delivery and was identified from the market video; police recovered some robbery-related items in a nearby garage.
The defendant was charged as a youthful offender with robbery in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree. Trial court granted acquittal on robbery and assault (no evidence defendant was at the scene) but found him guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree.
On appeal the state conceded insufficient evidence that the defendant agreed or intended the use of a firearm (an element for first‑degree conspiracy). The state sought remand to modify the adjudication to the lesser included offense (conspiracy to commit robbery in the third degree); defendant opposed. The court reversed the adjudication and directed a judgment of acquittal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree	State argued evidence supported conspiracy adjudication (defendant conspired with others who committed the robbery)	Defendant argued there was no evidence he agreed or intended that coconspirators would use a firearm (an element of first‑degree conspiracy)	Court: Insufficient evidence of intent/agreement to use a firearm → conviction reversed and judgment of acquittal ordered
Whether conviction should be modified to lesser included offense (conspiracy to commit robbery in the third degree)	State argued the court necessarily found the elements of the lesser offense and asked to remand to modify adjudication	Defendant argued he was not charged with the lesser offense, lacked notice, and trial strategy could differ; modification would be unfair	Court: Applying LaFleur/Sanseverino factors, modification would be unfair (state strategically charged only the greater offense; defendant objected; trial strategy may differ) → denied; remand for acquittal
Whether to address defendant’s claim about unproduced videotape evidence	State did not persuade on sufficiency; court noted the claim but, because it reversed on sufficiency, it did not reach the videotape claim	Defendant had argued state failed to produce a relevant videotape used against him	Court: Did not reach/decide the videotape suppression claim because reversal on insufficiency disposed of the appeal

State v. Pond, 138 Conn. App. 228 (discusses the requirement that a defendant specifically intend/agreed that a deadly weapon be used in robbery conspiracies)
State v. Pond, 315 Conn. 451 (Supreme Court affirming requirement that conspiracy culpability includes intent regarding represented deadly weapon)
State v. LaFleur, 307 Conn. 115 (held that modifying a conviction to an uncharged lesser included offense may be unfair and remand for acquittal required under certain factors)
State v. Sanseverino, 291 Conn. 574 (sets out factors to determine fairness of modifying conviction to an uncharged lesser included offense)