State v. Allan, 2011 Conn. App. LEXIS 478

Defendant Nemiah Allan was convicted by jury of conspiracy to sell narcotics by a person not drug-dependent and Interfering with an Officer; other charges were acquitted.
On April 15, 2009, Meriden police/DEA surveillance observed Allan on Maple Street engaging in drug-related activity and a specific crack-cocaine transaction with a man in a white van (Zarabozo) who later admitted purchasing crack from Allan.
Allan then interacted with an Acura outside 10 Maple Branch; after signaling and talking inside the car, police arrested Allan about one to two hours later.
Allan admitted to authorities that the driver (Thomas) would resupply him with crack cocaine, naming Thomas as a known drug supplier and providing Fleet’s phone number.
Police used Allan and Clayton to locate Fleet (Kareem Thomas), whose real name was identified; Allan was taken to the station and referred to Zarabozo by the booking officer as the person Allan sold drugs to.
The jury found Allan not guilty on some charges but guilty of conspiracy to sell narcotics and interfering with an officer; the trial court sentenced him to twelve years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there sufficient evidence of an agreement to distribute narcotics?	Allan admitted calling Thomas to resupply; an agreement existed.	No proven past/future agreement or benefit to Thomas.	Yes; the agreement and intent were established by Allan’s statements and conduct.
Was there an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy?	Overt acts included Thomas’s drive to Maple Branch, flashing of lights, and ensuing discussion.	The meeting breakdown undermined the acts' relevance as overt acts.	Yes; overt acts need not be criminal and breakdown does not negate overt acts already proven.
Should the federal buyer-seller exception apply?	Not explicitly discussed, but elements require an ongoing transfer intent.	CT should adopt federal buyer-seller exception to require a joint intention.	CT does not adopt the buyer-seller exception.
Does breakdown of an agreement defeat conspiracy?	Breakdown could terminate conspiracy.	Renunciation may be required to defeat conspiracy.	Breakdown does not defeat conspiracy; renunciation not shown.

State v. Forde, 52 Conn.App. 159 (1999) (conspiracy elements; overt acts may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
State v. Elijah, 42 Conn. App. 687 (1996) (overt act may be by either coconspirator; not required to be criminal)
State v. Jennings, 125 Conn.App. 801 (2011) (sufficiency standard; cumulative evidence permitted)
State v. Rodriguez, 93 Conn.App. 739 (2006) (sufficiency review; circumstantial evidence acceptable)
United States v. Parker, 554 F.3d 230 (2d Cir. 2009) (buyer-seller exception not adopted in Connecticut)