With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". repeatedly has held that “persons cannot attempt or conspire to commit an offense that requires an unintended result.” State v. Foster, 202 Conn. 520, 522 A.2d 277, 281 (1987); see State v. Beccia, 199 Conn. 1, 505 A.2d 683, 684-85 (1986) (conspiracy to commit arson in third degree is not a cognizable offense because third-degree arson requires reckless mental state and conspirators cannot agree to accomplish a required specific result recklessly); State v. Almeda, 189 Conn. 303, 455 A.2d 1326, 1330-31 (1983) (attempted manslaughter is not a cognizable offense because it is not possible to have specific intent to commit unintentional killing). A number of intermediate appellate courts have reached similar conclusions. Cf., e.g., Evanchyk v. Stewart, 340 F.3d 933, 939-40 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>); State v. Wilson, 30 Kan.App.2d 498, 43 P.3d

A: holding that conspiracy to commit murder is not lesserincluded offense of firstdegree murder
B: holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense
C: holding that where both firstdegree and felony murder were possible bases for a murder conviction a jury instruction that suggested the jury could rely on felony murder as the predicate offense for a conviction for conspiracy to commit murder was improper because under arizona law a conviction for conspiracy to commit firstdegree murder requires a specific intent to kill
D: holding that conviction for seconddegree murder operates as implied acquittal on firstdegree murder count
C.