State v. Taylor
132 Conn. App. 357
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Taylor was convicted of cheating during gambling, conspiracy to cheat during gambling, first-degree larceny, and conspiracy to commit first-degree larceny following a jury trial.
- Appellant argues the trial court erred in its jury instructions on the conspiracy elements, particularly the agreement element.
- Facts show Taylor, a professional craps player, recruited former Foxwoods employees and dealers to participate in late-bet schemes and paid dealers for information and participation.
- The conspirators’ conduct allegedly caused Foxwoods to incur tens of thousands of dollars in losses; Taylor admitted awareness but claimed no participation or agreement.
- The court charged conspiracy with three elements (agreement, overt act, specific intent) and explained that an agreement could be proven by circumstantial evidence and need not be formal.
- On appeal, Golding review was invoked; the appellate court held the instruction did not deprive Taylor of a fair trial and did not constitute a constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the conspiracy instruction properly stated agreement | Taylor contends the instruction allowed mere knowledge to satisfy agreement | State argues instruction followed controlling Supreme Court precedent | No reversible error; instruction properly conveyed agreement and intent |
| Whether the Holmes/Mutual Purpose lineage requires reversal | Taylor argues decades of mis-citation misstates the law and should be corrected | State-bound court will not overturn Supreme Court precedent; binding authority remains | Golding analysis fails; no clear constitutional violation; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (2005) (conspiracy elements may be proven by knowingly engaged mutual plan; no formal agreement required)
- State v. Millan, 290 Conn. 816 (2009) (approval of non-formal agreement standard in conspiracy)
- State v. Martin, 285 Conn. 135 (2008) (non-formal agreement sufficient for conspiracy element)
- State v. Reeves, 118 Conn.App. 698 (2010) (Golding framework for constitutional claims on appeal)
- State v. Brown, 259 Conn. 799 (2002) (constitutional dimension of conspiracy challenge; standard for review)
- State v. Kemp, 126 Conn. 60 (1939) (earlier articulation of mutual purpose in conspiracy)
- State v. Rich, 129 Conn. 537 (1942) (early conspiracy framework prior to modern formulations)
- Holmes, 160 Conn. 140 (1970) (conspiracy discussion and alleged mis-citation line of cases)