State v. Carter, 350 Conn. 43

Jacques Carter was convicted by a jury in Connecticut of home invasion and first-degree burglary after breaking into a Danbury apartment in 2016 while armed with a Crosman Vigilante air gun that lacked a CO2 cartridge and had its cartridge chamber sealed with duct tape.
The state's case relied on charging Carter, in the alternative, with being armed with either a "deadly weapon" or a "dangerous instrument" during the commission of the crimes.
The trial court denied Carter's motions to acquit and for a new trial, holding that it was a question of fact for the jury whether the inoperable air gun qualified as a deadly weapon; the jury found Carter guilty on the relevant counts.
On appeal, Carter argued the air gun could not legally be deemed a "deadly weapon" absent immediate firing capability, and that the jury instructions were incorrect.
The Supreme Court of Connecticut found the trial court's instructions (and the State's theory) legally erroneous, holding that a weapon must be readily capable of discharging a shot at the time of the crime to qualify as a deadly weapon under the statute.
The judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial limited to the dangerous instrument theory.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the air gun was a deadly weapon under § 53a-3 (6)	It is enough the air gun was operable/functional	Deadly weapon must be readily able to fire	Air gun lacking a CO2 cartridge & chamber sealed off is not a deadly weapon
Whether issue was fact for jury or a legal question	Jury should decide based on evidence	Purely legal/statutory interpretation	Mixed question, but statutory meaning is a legal question, reviewed de novo
Applicability of general verdict rule with two legal theories	General verdict valid if evidence sufficient under any	Legal error precludes general verdict rule	Legal misinstruction precludes upholding verdict under general verdict rule
Sufficiency of jury instruction on weapon status	Instruction adequate if gun in working order	Jury should be told about immediacy requirement	Instruction failed to convey immediacy; reversed and remanded for retrial

State v. Adams, 327 Conn. 297 (deference to jury on factual sufficiency unless legal error is present)
State v. Ramos, 271 Conn. 785 (statutory interpretation is a matter of law, subject to plenary review)
State v. Chapman, 229 Conn. 529 (legal error in jury instruction precludes reliance on general verdict rule)
State v. DeCiccio, 315 Conn. 79 (distinction between statutory interpretation as law and application to facts as jury question)