State v. Abdus-Sabur, 190 Conn. App. 589

On Jan. 17, 2014, a fight occurred at a third-floor apartment in a Waterbury housing complex; the victim (Kareem Morey Sr.) later returned to the complex and stood in the courtyard while others gathered on the third-floor landing.
The defendant, Ismail Abdus‑Sabur, fired a .45 caliber handgun repeatedly from the third‑floor railing into the courtyard; the victim was struck in the chest and later died.
Witnesses placed the defendant on the landing firing the gun; one witness (Nunez) was impeached with a prior inconsistent statement that she did not see the shooter and had heard from another (Kareem) that a third person (Clinton) was the shooter.
After the shooting the defendant fled, left town the next day, left the state later that week, and threatened the victim’s sons the day after the shooting.
Defendant was convicted by a jury of murder and criminal possession of a firearm; he appeals, raising (1) insufficiency of evidence on intent to kill, (2) denial of a third‑party culpability instruction, and (3) admission of gang‑affiliation testimony as improper uncharged‑misconduct evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence to prove specific intent to kill	State: cumulative circumstantial evidence (use of deadly weapon at close range, motive from earlier fight, flight, threats) supports inference of intent	Abdus‑Sabur: firing alone is insufficient to prove specific intent to kill	Affirmed — jury reasonably inferred intent from repeated close‑range shooting, motive, flight, post‑shooting threats and consciousness of guilt
Third‑party culpability instruction (Clinton)	State: evidence pointing to Clinton was admitted only for impeachment and not substantive; no direct connection	Abdus‑Sabur: testimony suggested Clinton was the shooter and warranted instruction	Affirmed — no substantive evidence directly connecting Clinton to the shooting; only impeachment testimony existed, so instruction not required
Admission of gang‑affiliation testimony	State: testimony was relevant to explain witness’ delay in reporting and was admitted with limiting instructions	Abdus‑Sabur: evidence constituted prejudicial uncharged misconduct and should have been excluded	Not reviewed on merits — claim deemed abandoned because defendant failed to brief whether any erroneous admission was harmful to the outcome

State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218 (2004) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence and reasonable inferences)
State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1 (2003) (limits on permissible inferences vs. speculation)
State v. Bennett, 307 Conn. 758 (2013) (intent to kill may be inferred from weapon use and circumstances)
State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (2012) (transporting a deadly weapon to location supports inference of intent)
State v. McClam, 44 Conn. App. 198 (1997) (use of deadly weapon supports inference of intent)
State v. Rasmussen, 225 Conn. 55 (1993) (pistol is a deadly weapon per se; intent inference)
State v. Gary, 273 Conn. 393 (2005) (transferred intent doctrine; shooting a bystander can still show intent to kill)
State v. Courchesne, 296 Conn. 622 (2010) (doctrine of transferred intent and statutory framing of murder)
State v. Melendez, 74 Conn. App. 215 (2002) (flight and leaving jurisdiction as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
State v. Arroyo, 284 Conn. 597 (2007) (standard for admitting third‑party culpability evidence — direct connection required)
State v. Toro, 172 Conn. App. 810 (2017) (harmless‑error framework for evidentiary rulings)
State v. Buhl, 321 Conn. 688 (2016) (appellate briefing requirements and abandonment for inadequately briefed claims)