State v. Carter, 317 Conn. 845

Officers executed a plan to approach defendant at Time Out Sports Café after a tip that he would "pop this white dude." Plainclothes officer Nordstrom wore a shirt clearly marked "POLICE."
As Nordstrom and another plainclothes officer turned toward him, defendant drew a small .22 caliber handgun from his right front pocket, aimed it at Nordstrom’s midsection, assumed a shooting stance, and placed his finger on the trigger for ~5 seconds while ignoring orders to drop the weapon.
Other uniformed officers rushed in; a struggle ensued and the defendant was subdued after an officer aimed a patrol rifle and ordered him to show his hands. The gun had five rounds in the magazine but none in the chamber.
Defendant testified the gun had been given to him earlier and he had not displayed it; he claimed officers mistook a cell phone in his hand for a gun. No cell phone was recovered.
Defendant was convicted of, inter alia, attempt to commit assault in the first degree (intent to cause serious physical injury). The Appellate Court affirmed; the Supreme Court granted certification on sufficiency of evidence to prove intent.

Issue	State's Argument	Carter's Argument	Held
Whether evidence sufficed to prove intent to inflict serious physical injury for attempt to commit first‑degree assault	Conduct and surrounding circumstances (aiming at midsection, shooting stance, finger on trigger, prior threat to "shoot" a white man, refusal to drop gun) permit an inference of intent beyond pointing a gun	Mere pointing (and lack of firing or racking) is equivocal; insufficient to prove intent to cause serious physical injury	Held: Sufficient. Jury could infer intent from cumulative facts consistent with the state's trial theory (directed at Officer Nordstrom)
Whether Appellate Court impermissibly changed the state's theory by speculating about mistaken identity/ transferred intent	Appellate review may consider all evidence; Appellate Court’s speculation unnecessary but state’s trial theory was Nordstrom as the target	Appellate Court relied on a theory not presented at trial, violating the theory‑of‑the‑case doctrine	Held: Theory‑of‑the‑case binds appellate courts too; but outcome affirmed because evidence sufficed under the state’s actual theory at trial

Dunn v. United States, 442 U.S. 100 (1979) (conviction cannot rest on a theory not alleged or presented at trial; due process limits appellate amendments to theory)
State v. Fourtin, 307 Conn. 186 (2012) (identify state’s theory from trial record and counsel’s conduct, not only pleadings)
State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) (sufficiency review: view evidence in light most favorable to sustain verdict; cumulative circumstantial evidence)
State v. Cooper, 227 Conn. 417 (1993) (intent can form instantaneously; intent is a fact question for the jury)
State v. Bennett, 307 Conn. 758 (2013) (pointing a gun may not alone prove intent to kill or cause serious injury absent additional corroborating facts)
State v. Osborne, 138 Conn. App. 518 (2012) (reaching for a gun while resisting officers may support inference of intent to use it)