general intent requirement in Connecticut

2026This appeal followed.8 The state claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the omission of an instruction on general 6 The Appellate Court concluded that the defendant’s claim of instruc- tional error was implicitly waived under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), and considered his claims under the plain error doctrine.

2026This appeal followed.8 The state claims that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the omission of an instruction on general 6 The Appellate Court concluded that the defendant’s claim of instruc- tional error was implicitly waived under State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011), and considered his claims under the plain error doctrine.

2026See Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions 2.3-1, available at https://www.jud.ct.gov/ JI/Criminal/Criminal.pdf (last visited February 24, March 3, 2026 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 13 354 Conn. 255 MARCH, 2026 265 State v. Anthony V. 2026).

2022The defendant next argues that, ‘‘[i]f this court does not believe the statute demands that the accomplice must specifically or generally intend that the principal fire a gun, the court should nonetheless hold that the accomplice should have knowledge of the gun.’’ In sup- port of this argument, the defendant urges this court to adopt the reasoning of Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 , 134 S. Ct. 1240 , 188 L.

2022The defendant next argues that, ‘‘[i]f this court does not believe the statute demands that the accomplice must specifically or generally intend that the principal fire a gun, the court should nonetheless hold that the accomplice should have knowledge of the gun.’’ In sup- port of this argument, the defendant urges this court to adopt the reasoning of Rosemond v. United States, 572 U.S. 65 , 134 S. Ct. 1240 , 188 L.

2019Furthermore, our Supreme Court in Martin went on to state that "a curative instruction should have been given discussing the general intent requirement in the context of the defense of accident which had been raised." Id., at 14 , 454 A.2d 256 .

2019Furthermore, our Supreme Court in Martin went on to state that "a curative instruction should have been given discussing the general intent requirement in the context of the defense of accident which had been raised." Id., at 14 , 454 A.2d 256 .

2017Although the number of proper intent instructions given alone is not the measure of whether an improper intent instruction has been sufficiently ameliorated; State v. Montanez , supra, 277 Conn. at 746 , 894 A.2d 928 ("A quantitative 'litmus test' measuring how frequently a trial court gives an irrelevant instruction is ... insufficient to establish an instruction's tendency to mislead the jury.

2017Although the number of proper intent instructions given alone is not the measure of whether an improper intent instruction has been sufficiently ameliorated; State v. Montanez , supra, 277 Conn. at 746 , 894 A.2d 928 ("A quantitative 'litmus test' measuring how frequently a trial court gives an irrelevant instruction is ... insufficient to establish an instruction's tendency to mislead the jury.

2008Here, the court read the general intent instruction only once during its charge, while also specifically instructing the jury that it had to find that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim to find him guilty of murder. 4 The defendant also urges, however, that the number of correct instructions versus incorrect instructions *232 should not be relevant to our analysis in light of State v. Sivak, 84 Conn. App. 105, 112 , 852 A.2d 812 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004), a case in which a panel of this court stated that “appellate review should consist of more t

2008Here, the court read the general intent instruction only once during its charge, while also specifically instructing the jury that it had to find that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim to find him guilty of murder. 4 The defendant also urges, however, that the number of correct instructions versus incorrect instructions *232 should not be relevant to our analysis in light of State v. Sivak, 84 Conn. App. 105, 112 , 852 A.2d 812 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004), a case in which a panel of this court stated that “appellate review should consist of more t

2008Here, the court read the general intent instruction only once during its charge, while also specifically instructing the jury that it had to find that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim to find him guilty of murder. 4 The defendant also urges, however, that the number of correct instructions versus incorrect instructions *232 should not be relevant to our analysis in light of State v. Sivak, 84 Conn. App. 105, 112 , 852 A.2d 812 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004), a case in which a panel of this court stated that “appellate review should consist of more t

2008Here, the court read the general intent instruction only once during its charge, while also specifically instructing the jury that it had to find that the defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim to find him guilty of murder. 4 The defendant also urges, however, that the number of correct instructions versus incorrect instructions *232 should not be relevant to our analysis in light of State v. Sivak, 84 Conn. App. 105, 112 , 852 A.2d 812 , cert. denied, 271 Conn. 916 , 859 A.2d 573 (2004), a case in which a panel of this court stated that “appellate review should consist of more t

2006That constitutional claim was raised, however, in State v. Torrice, 20 Conn.App. 75, 80-81 , 564 A.2d 330 (1989), cert. denied, 213 Conn. 809 , 568 A.2d 794 (1989).

2006That constitutional claim was raised, however, in State v. Torrice, 20 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 564 A.2d 330 (1988), cert. denied, 213 Conn. 809 , 568 A.2d 794 (1989).

2006That constitutional claim was raised, however, in State v. Torrice, 20 Conn.App. 75, 80-81 , 564 A.2d 330 (1989), cert. denied, 213 Conn. 809 , 568 A.2d 794 (1989).

2006That constitutional claim was raised, however, in State v. Torrice, 20 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 564 A.2d 330 (1988), cert. denied, 213 Conn. 809 , 568 A.2d 794 (1989).

2006The defendant failed to preserve this claim at trial 8 and now seeks to prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989).

2006The defendant failed to preserve this claim at trial 8 and now seeks to prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989).

2006That constitutional claim was raised, however, in State v. Torrice, 20 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 564 A.2d 330 (1988), cert. denied, 213 Conn. 809 , 568 A.2d 794 (1989).

2006That constitutional claim was raised, however, in State v. Torrice, 20 Conn. App. 75, 80-81 , 564 A.2d 330 (1988), cert. denied, 213 Conn. 809 , 568 A.2d 794 (1989).

2001Bronson v. Pinney , supra, 130 Conn. 270 ; see also Clark v. Portland Burying Ground Assn. , 151 Conn. 527 , 531 , 200 A.2d 468 (1964); Morehouse v. Bridgeport-City Trust Co. , 137 Conn. 209 , 216 , 75 A.2d 493 (1950).

2001Bronson v. Pinney , supra, 130 Conn. 270 ; see also Clark v. Portland Burying Ground Assn. , 151 Conn. 527 , 531 , 200 A.2d 468 (1964); Morehouse v. Bridgeport-City Trust Co. , 137 Conn. 209 , 216 , 75 A.2d 493 (1950).