State v. Washington, 186 Conn.App. 176

On Feb. 19, 2014, three men (Shannon Davis, Trajuan Washington, and a third man) went to 33 Seyms Street intending to break into a first‑floor apartment and steal money; Washington and Davis were armed with handguns.
The men entered the apartment building, walked down an interior hallway, knocked on the apartment door, used a false name to induce opening, and Washington tried to catch/force the door as it was closed.
After leaving the building, two men (including Davis) fired shots toward the building; no one was injured.
Weeks later Davis confessed, identified Washington as a shooter, pleaded guilty in exchange for cooperation, and testified at Washington’s trial.
A jury convicted Washington of conspiracy to commit home invasion, attempt to commit home invasion, and related charges; he appealed challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence for conspiracy and attempt and (2) jury instructions that repeatedly used "building" instead of the statutory term "dwelling."

Issue	State's Argument	Washington's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — conspiracy to commit home invasion	Davis’s testimony and corroborating facts (traveling together, jointly armed, common plan to steal from a particular apartment) support an agreement to commit home invasion	Evidence rested principally on cooperating witness; no independent proof of an agreement to commit the specific offense of home invasion	Affirmed — jury reasonably credited Davis; circumstantial and direct evidence supported an agreement to commit home invasion
Sufficiency — attempt to commit home invasion	Knocking, using a ruse to induce opening, trying to force entry while armed constituted substantial steps strongly corroborative of intent to commit home invasion	No entry was completed; therefore, no substantial step toward home invasion — could be intent to commit some other crime	Affirmed — actions constituted substantial steps toward home invasion and corroborated intent required for attempt
Jury instruction error (dwelling vs. building)	Written instructions largely used the correct statutory term; the overall charge, read as a whole, was legally sufficient and not misleading	Oral charge repeatedly substituted "building" for "dwelling," diluting the element and lowering the State’s burden of proof	Affirmed — error was not reasonably likely to have misled the jury; written instructions (and context) made correct law clear; no plain error

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (defendant may prevail on unpreserved constitutional claims only if the record is adequate, claim is of constitutional magnitude, the violation existed and deprived defendant of a fair trial, and harmlessness not shown)
In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 (modifies/applics Golding standard)
State v. Allan, 311 Conn. 1 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 (jury instructions must be read as a whole; assess whether instructions could reasonably mislead jurors)
State v. Serrano, 91 Conn. App. 227 (examples of conduct constituting sufficient substantial step for attempt/burglary)