State v. Carter, 61 A.3d 1103

Defendant Kenneth Carter was convicted after a jury trial in the New London Superior Court on eight counts arising from an October 29, 2008 incident at the Time Out Sports Café in Groton.
Police executed a search warrant; an informant warned Carter planned to attack a target at the café, prompting a multi-officer entry with Nordstrom and Bee posing as plainclothes officers and others in uniform.
During the entry, Carter drew and pointed an operable .22 caliber handgun at Nordstrom, prompting warnings from officers and a rapid physical confrontation as Wolfe, Savino, and Ashbey attempted to subdue him.
A handgun (unracked) and a box of drugs were recovered from Carter after the struggle; Nordstrom and Bee identified the gun and Carter’s prior illegal firearm/drug status.
While being booked, Carter threatened Savino and his family, and Savino testified he believed the threats to be genuine.
The jury convicted Carter of attempted assault in the first degree, reckless endangerment in the first degree, and threatening in the second degree, among other counts; he challenged sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted assault	Carter acted with intent to injure Nordstrom when he drew and pointed the gun.	No clear intent to shoot; the gun was not cocked or fired, thus no substantial step showing intent.	Sufficient evidence supported intent and substantial step.
Sufficiency of evidence for reckless endangerment	Pointing a firearm in a crowded bar created an extreme danger and risk of serious injury.	Gun not cocked; risk argued by state was speculative and not proven by conduct.	Sufficient evidence that conduct showed extreme indifference to human life.
Constitutional sufficiency of true threats under § 53a-62 (a) (2)	Carter's statements to Savino were true threats of violence toward Savino and his mother.	Statements were conditional/puffery and not threats.	Statements constituted true threats; constitutionally regu-lated.

State v. Reid, 123 Conn. App. 383 (Conn. App. 2010) (two-part sufficiency standard; review for reasonableness)
State v. Wilcox, 254 Conn. 441 (Conn. 2000) (intent for attempt requires corroboration of purpose)
State v. Davila, 75 Conn. App. 432 (Conn. App. 2003) (danger/conduct can imply risk; infers subjective risk)
State v. DeLoreto, 265 Conn. 145 (Conn. 2003) (true threats framework; independent First Amendment review)
State v. Krijger, 130 Conn. App. 470 (Conn. App. 2011) (true threats; objective standard for foreseeability)
DiMartino v. Richens, 263 Conn. 639 (Conn. 2003) (de novo review in free speech cases)