State v. Hopkins

In State v. Hopkins, 25 Conn. App. 565, 568-69, 595 A.2d 911, cert. denied, 220 Conn. 921, 597 A.2d 342 (1991) the Court reasoned that the court had not improperly instructed the jury on the principle of accessorial liability for several reasons. 25 Conn. App. at 568-70. First, the defendant in that case did not submit a request for a bill of particulars after the state filed a substitute information. 25 Conn. App. at 569. Second, the character of the evidence adduced during the state's case-in-chief "should have alerted the defendant to the heightened possibility that he could be convicted as an accessory." Id. Third, the defendant was on notice after the victim testified that the court would instruct the jury on the theory of accessorial liability.