196 Conn.App. 510
Conn. App. Ct.2020Background
- Ourfalian arranged to buy $1,500 worth of marijuana from Bradbury; they met in a parking area at night. Ourfalian had $1,500 tucked into his waistband.
- Ourfalian saw Bradbury standing by a white BMW, saw a gun in Bradbury’s hand, started to run, heard a gunshot, and realized he had been shot; money was later missing.
- Police recovered a .45 shell casing and some of Ourfalian’s personal items at the meeting place; no gun was recovered.
- Ourfalian identified Bradbury in a photographic array; Bradbury stipulated at trial that he was a convicted felon and had no gun permit.
- The jury convicted Bradbury of criminal possession of a firearm and carrying a pistol without a permit, but acquitted him of assault in the first degree and attempt to commit robbery.
- Bradbury appealed, arguing the guilty firearm verdicts were legally inconsistent with the acquittals and therefore insufficient as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for criminal possession of a firearm and carrying a pistol without a permit, given acquittals on assault and robbery | State: Yes — victim saw Bradbury with a gun, heard the shot, identified him in a photo array; Bradbury admitted to being a felon and lacking a permit | Bradbury: No — jury’s acquittals on assault/robbery show it discredited the prosecution’s version (that he held and fired the gun), so firearm convictions are inconsistent/unsupported | Court: Affirmed. The claim is an impermissible challenge to an allegedly inconsistent verdict recast as insufficiency; applying the Jackson standard, the evidence (victim’s ID + stipulations) was sufficient. Jurors may credit parts of testimony. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Daniel B., 201 A.3d 989 (Conn. 2019) (explaining state sufficiency-of-evidence review).
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (constitutional standard for sufficiency of the evidence).
- State v. Arroyo, 973 A.2d 1254 (Conn. 2009) (legal inconsistency between conviction and acquittal is not reviewable).
- State v. Kaplan, 45 A. 1018 (Conn. 1900) (jury may accept some portions of a witness’s testimony and reject others).
- State v. Blaine, 147 A.3d 1044 (Conn. App. 2016) (courts reviewing allegedly inconsistent verdicts examine only sufficiency of evidence supporting conviction).