State v. Pond, 138 Conn. App. 228

Pond and Harris approached the Hamden victim on his sidewalk at night; Harris displayed a weapon after blocking the victim’s path and demanded surrender of belongings.
The victim fled after Harris displayed the weapon; Pond stood by and helped block the victim during the incident.
Pond and Harris were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree and with attempt to commit robbery; Pond was convicted of conspiracy and acquitted of attempt.
The conspiracy charge required proof that the conspirators intended to bring about the elements of the conspired offense, including the weapon display, not merely a general plan to act.
The court held the state must prove a specific intent that the weapon would be displayed in the course of the robbery, relied on Padua, and remanded for a new trial due to a defective jury instruction on this element.
The defendant’s conviction was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the jury was not properly instructed that the state must prove the conspirator’s specific intent to have a weapon displayed during the robbery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must the state prove specific intent to display a weapon for conspiracy to rob second degree?	Pond argues the state must prove a specific agreement and intent to display a weapon.	Pond contends no such specific intent is required beyond conspiracy to rob; Padua requires it.	Yes; Padua requires proof of specific intent to display.
Was the jury instruction on the conspiracy element constitutionally defective?	Pond argues the instruction misstated the required intent.	State argues induced error rule applies, but defense did not induce.	Instruction defective; remand for new trial.

State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (2005) (conspiracy requires intent to bring about all elements of the conspired offense)
State v. Crosswell, 223 Conn. 243 (1992) (conspiracy evidence may be inferred from acts at the scene)
State v. Beccia, 199 Conn. 1 (1986) (conspiracy is a specific-intent crime requiring intent to commit the offense)
State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477 (1995) (state not required to prove defendant knew location of sale near school)
State v. Avila, 223 Conn. 595 (1992) (accessory liability to robbery first degree requires no extra intent beyond underlying crime)
State v. Gonzalez, 300 Conn. 490 (2011) (distinguishes general vs. specific intent in related firearm/weapon contexts)
State v. Palangio, 115 Conn. App. 355 (2009) (conspiracy to rob first degree requires intent to commit robbery with firearm)
State v. Leggett, 94 Conn. App. 392 (2006) (discussion on larceny component and conspiracy intent)