State v. Moreno-Hernandez, 118 A.3d 26

The defendant, Jose Moreno-Hernandez, was charged with multiple offenses including five counts of first degree sexual assault, kidnapping, first degree assault, and attempt to commit murder under the attendant circumstances subdivision of § 53a-49(a)(1).
The trial court sua sponte raised whether the state could prove attempt under the attendant circumstances subdivision and refused to amend to the substantial step subdivision.
The jury was instructed only on the attendant circumstances subdivision and found the defendant guilty on all counts.
The state sought an amendment to charge attempt under the substantial step subdivision, which the court denied.
The appellate court ultimately held the attendant circumstances subdivision is not limited to impossibility situations and affirmed the conviction based on sufficient evidence under that subdivision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does § 53a-49(a)(1) apply beyond impossibility situations?	State argues attendant circumstances can apply when completion was prevented by intervening factors.	Moreno-Hernandez contends it applies only to impossibility cases.	Attendant circumstances subdivision applies beyond impossibility; affirmed.
Was there sufficient evidence to convict under the attendant circumstances subdivision?	State contends evidence showed he believed he had killed victim and acted to kill.	Moreno-Hernandez argues insufficient proof under attendant circumstances.	Yes; the evidence supported guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Should Gonzalez and Cox limits be reconsidered in interpreting § 53a-49(a)?	Cites Gonzalez to limit attendant circumstances to impossibility.	Relies on Cox to distinguish between subdivisions.	Yes; Gonzalez overruled to the extent inconsistent; adopts broader interpretation.

State v. Green, 194 Conn. 258 (Conn. 1984) (attendant circumstances can apply where the crime could have been completed)
State v. Gonzalez, 222 Conn. 718 (Conn. 1992) (attendant circumstances limited to impossibility in the majority view (overruled))
State v. Cox, 293 Conn. 234 (Conn. 2009) (distinction between subdivisions discussed; not controlling on this point)
State v. Rodriguez, 139 Conn. App. 594 (Conn. App. 2012) (Appellate decision on attendant circumstances)
State v. Carter, 141 Conn. App. 377 (Conn. App. 2013) (attendant circumstances vs. substantial step in appeal context)
State v. Desimone, 241 Conn. 439 (Conn. 1997) (statutory interpretation background for § 53a-49)