State v. Taylor

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RICHARD S. TAYLOR (SC 18916) Rogers, C. J., and Norcott, Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Espinosa, Js. Argued May 14—officially released June 25, 2013 Daniel J. Krisch, assigned counsel, for the appel- lant (defendant). Harry Weller, senior assistant state’s attorney, with whom were Jennifer W. Cooper, special deputy assis- tant state’s attorney, and, on the brief, Michael L. Regan, state’s attorney, and Stephen M. Carney, senior assis- tant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state). Moira L. Buckley and Leonard M. Crone filed a brief for the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Associa- tion as amicus curiae.  Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Richard S. Taylor, was found guilty by a jury of the crimes of cheating during gambling in violation of General Statutes § 53a-127d (a) (3), conspiracy to cheat during gambling in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-127d (a) (3), lar- ceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2007) § 53a-122 (a) (2), and conspiracy to com- mit larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 53a-122 (a) (2). The trial court rendered a corresponding judgment of conviction and sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of thirteen years, execution suspended after ten years, with a three year period of probation. The defendant subsequently appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming ‘‘that the trial court’s instruction to the jury on the conspiracy offenses was improper, necessitating a reversal by [the Appellate Court] of his conviction and a remand to the trial court for a new trial.’’ State v. Taylor, 132 Conn. App. 357, 359, 31 A.3d 872 (2011). The Appellate Court concluded that, on the basis of its review of the entire charge, it was not reasonably possible that the jury was misled. Id., 367. Further, the Appellate Court held that the trial court properly stated the law on conspiracy, including the element of agreement, in accordance with Supreme Court prece- dent. Id. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. Id. We then granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal to this court, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly determine that in a conspiracy case it is sufficient for the court to instruct the jury that, with respect to the first essential element that there was an agreement, ‘[i]t is sufficient to show that the parties knowingly engaged in a mutual plan to do a criminal act?’ ’’ State v. Taylor, 303 Conn. 930, 36 A.3d 241 (2012). After examining the entire record on appeal and con- sidering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed.