Certification was improvidently granted to determine whether the Appellate Court properly determined that in a conspiracy case, it is sufficient for the court to instruct the jury with respect to the essential element that there was an agreement, that, as stated in the 2012 Supreme Court case of State v. Taylor, "[i]t is sufficient to show that the parties knowingly engaged in a mutual plan to do a criminal act." Following a jury trial, Richard Taylor was convicted of cheating during gambling, conspiracy to cheat during gambling and larceny in the first degree. Taylor appealed claiming that the court's jury instruction on the conspiracy offences was improper. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment, concluding that it was not reasonably possible that the jury was misled and that the trial court properly stated the law on conspiracy, including the element of agreement in accordance with Supreme Court precedent. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly determined that in a conspiracy case, it is sufficient for the court to instruct the jury, with respect to the essential element that there was an agreement, that, as stated in the 2012 Supreme Court case of State v. Taylor, "[i]t is sufficient to show that the parties knowingly engaged in a mutual plan to do a criminal act." After examining the record and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on the ground that certification was improvidently granted.

VIEW FULL CASE