September 18, 2019.
from the Superior Court in the judicial district of
Waterbury, before K. Murphy, J.
Marshall, for the appellant (defendant).
A. Chiarenza, assistant states attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were Maureen Platt, states attorney, and David A.
Gulick, senior assistant states attorney, for the appellee
Devlin and Harper, Js.
Conn.App. 302] The defendant, Anthony E. Brooks, Jr., appeals
from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial,
of illegal receipt of a firearm in violation of General
Statutes § 29-33 (b). On appeal, the defendant asserts that
there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of
that charge because the state did not prove when or how the
defendant received the firearm. We disagree with the
defendants argument but conclude, for another reason, that
there was insufficient evidence to support the defendants
conviction of illegal receipt of a firearm. Accordingly, we
reverse the judgment of conviction only on this count and
remand this case with direction to vacate the conviction of
Conn.App. 303] As relevant to this appeal, the jury
reasonably could have found the following facts. On September
9, 2015, the police attempted to conduct a motor vehicle stop
of the defendant for his failure to obey a stop sign. After
crashing his car and fleeing on foot, the defendant was
confronted by the police and was seen tossing an object away
from him. The police recovered the object, which proved to be
a Remington Arms Model 1911 R1 .45 ACP handgun that had been
reported stolen on July 27, 2012.
a jury trial, the defendant was convicted on November 30,
2016 of, inter alia, illegal receipt of a firearm in
violation of § 29-33 (b). The statute provides in relevant
part: [N]o person may purchase or receive any pistol or
revolver unless such person holds a valid permit to carry a
pistol or revolver ... a valid permit to sell at retail a
pistol or revolver ... or a valid eligibility certificate ...
or is a federal marshal, parole officer or peace
officer." General Statutes § 29-33 (b). On appeal,
the defendant argues that there was insufficient evidence to
support his conviction on this count. We agree.
the parties disagree as to the precise meaning of the word
receive" in § 29-33 (b), both agree that it means more
than mere possession. At trial, the state proved that on
September 9, 2015, when the defendant [194 Conn.App. 304] was
found to be in possession of a firearm, he was disqualified
from receiving a firearm because he was a convicted felon.
The state, however, concedes that it did not prove that the
defendant was disqualified at the time that he received the
firearm, nor did it establish when the defendant came into
possession of the firearm. The state, therefore, further
concedes, and we agree after examining the record, that there
was insufficient evidence to establish that the defendant
violated § 29-33 (b).
judgment is reversed only as to the conviction of illegal
receipt of a firearm and the case is remanded with direction
to vacate the defendants conviction of that ...