State v. Smith, 118 A.3d 49

Smith was charged with attempt to commit robbery in the first degree and attempted kidnapping stemming from an incident with Cooper.
Smith allegedly mailed $294 to Cooper while in prison, intending to hire an attorney or post bond; Cooper kept the money.
A later encounter involved Smith and Cooper where a knife was used and money was demanded; state charged robbery attempt and kidnapping attempt.
Trial court denied defense requests, including a § 53a-21 justification instruction and an acquittal on ownership grounds.
Jury convicted of attempted robbery and acquitted the kidnapping; appellate court reversed on the robbery charge, remanding for acquittal.
Ct Supreme Court addressed whether ownership of the money is an element of robbery first degree and whether § 53a-21 applies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must the state prove non-ownership as an element?	Smith (state) contends ownership is not an element; the passion to repossess may justify robbery.	Smith asserts ownership negates larceny, so no robbery liability if defendant owned the money.	Yes; ownership is an element; state must prove defendant did not own the property.
Does § 53a-21 provide the exclusive defense to use of force in taking property?	State argues § 53a-21 bars ownership defenses by limiting force to justified recoveries.	Smith contends § 53a-21 does not bar ownership-based defenses to robbery.	No; § 53a-21 does not bar ownership-based defense to robbery.
Should the court adopt a claim-of-right approach to robbery when taking one’s own property?	State suggests public policy supports a claim-of-right defense to robbery in certain contexts.	Smith argues no public policy exception to the plain statutory language that ownership matters.	Adopt plain-language approach; ownership matters, and claim-of-right defenses to robbery are disallowed.

State v. Lewis, 245 Conn. 779 (1998) (to prove robbery, state must prove larceny)
State v. Jordan, 135 Conn. App. 635 (2012) (robbery requires intent to commit larceny)
Morant, 242 Conn. 666 (1997) (ownership of contraband not defense to robbery; policy context discussed)
Woolfolk, 8 Conn. App. 667 (1986) (§ 53a-21 not applicable to robbery when concerns weaponized force)
Messier, 16 Conn. App. 455 (1988) (discussed claim-of-right and justification in robbery context (overruled to extent inconsistent))
Salamon, 287 Conn. 509 (2008) (rejects bizarre results from literal statutory interpretation)
Crosswell, 223 Conn. 243 (1992) (ownership and larceny elements discussed in related context)