(1985); see also State v. Crosswell, 223 Conn. 243, 263, 612 A.2d 1174 (1992) (“persons cannot attempt or conspire to commit an offense that requires an unintended result” [internal quotation marks omitted]). Second, the state does not challenge the defendant’s assertion that the trial court did in fact provide such an improper instruction. Third, the state does not challenge that the first two prongs of State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239, were satisfied, thus permitting review of this unpreserved claim. See footnote 4 of this opinion. Rather, the state’s response to the defendant’s claimed impropriety is that, despite any impropriety in the trial court’s instructions, it is not likely that they had an effect on the jury. See State v. Alston, 272 Conn. 432, 447, 862 A.2d 817 (2005) (<HOLDING>). Essentially, the state contends that it was
holding that standing is component of subjectmatter jurisdiction recognizing that reviewing court considers effect of charge on jury rather than component parts recognizing that this court considers only legal questions when considering interlocutory appeal from denial of qualified immunity holding that reviewing court may consider trial evidence in reviewing denial of motion to suppress holding that component parts of an article are not directly competitive with the imported articles