State v. Osbourne, 53 A.3d 284

On August 29, 2009, Bridgeport police responded to a church burglar alarm and observed Osbourne and another man acting suspiciously near the church.
The officers stopped the pair, who fled; Vasquez restrained Osbourne and Larregui detained the other man until a Taser was drawn.
The Taser’s use recorded the encounter with Osbourne on its camera as the three officers attempted to subdue him.
Osbourne resisted, Vasquez placed him in a choke hold, and Osbourne was repeatedly tasered during the struggle.
While being restrained, Osbourne reached into his shorts pocket and partially removed a cocked, loaded revolver which later fell to the ground and was kicked away by Larregui.
Convicted of three counts of attempt to commit first-degree assault and related firearm offenses, Osbourne appealed of sufficiency of evidence, the video-deliberations issue, and an instructional error about interfering with a peace officer.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for three counts of attempt to commit assault in the first degree	Osbourne argues evidence fails to prove intent and substantial steps for each victim	State contends conduct strongly corroborates intent to cause serious injury	Evidence sufficient for all three counts
Court's handling of replaying the video during deliberations	State and defendant failed to preserve? claim under Golding; seeks private viewing	Video viewing in courtroom violated Gould; allegedly prejudicial	Not reversible error; Golding plain error inapplicable; no manifest injustice shown
Instruction on the intent element for interfering with an officer	Court failed to instruct specific intent for interfering with an officer	Waived because instructions were reviewed at conference and repeatedly given	Waived; no Golding relief; no plain error

State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (2010) (discusses sufficiency and inference in criminal intent)
State v. Robinson, 127 Conn. App. 1 (2011) (substantial step standard and corroboration of criminal purpose)
State v. Morgan, 274 Conn. 790 (2005) (jury may weigh circumstantial evidence and inferences)
State v. Gould, 241 Conn. 1 (1997) (deliberating-room viewing of evidence; Gould holding on viewing in-room requires open-court setting)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (implicit waiver when counsel reviewed and accepted instructions)
State v. Montgomery, 22 Conn. App. 340 (1990) (multiple victims in single episode; separate offenses based on proven acts against each victim)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (criteria for constitutional review of unpreserved claims)