Under the 2005 Connecticut Supreme Court case of State v. Padua, in order to prove the defendant guilty of conspiracy to commit robbery in the second degree in violation of C.G.S. §53a-135(a)(2), the state needed to prove that he and his coconspirator specifically had an agreement to display a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and that the defendant had the specific intent that such a weapon or instrument would be displayed.
State v. Pond
Connecticut Appellate Court
October 8, 2012
This article requires premium access
This article requires premium access to Connecticut Law Tribune. Please sign in or subscribe to read the full text.