merely reckless toward the possibility that his conduct might have a certain consequence.” Marianne Wesson, Crimes and Defenses in Colorado 24 (1989). The culpable mental states for conspiracy and for reckless manslaughter are legally and logically inconsistent. The crime of conspiracy to commit reckless manslaughter would require that the defendant have the specific intent to commit reckless manslaughter. Crimes of recklessness are, by definition, crimes that are committed unintentionally, but with a conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur. Thus, the state of mind required for reckless manslaughter is irreconcilable with the specific intent required for conspiracy. See State v. Toczko, 23 Conn.App. 502, 582 A.2d 769, 772 (Conn.App.Ct.1990) (<HOLDING>); Wayne R. LaFave & Austin W. Scott, Jr.,
holding claim is not cognizable holding that a case is moot when the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome holding that conspiracy to commit manslaughter is not legally cognizable because the death of the victim is unintended holding a claim for patronage dismissal was legally cognizable holding claim is cognizable