State v. Bischoff, 182 Conn. App. 563

Police surveilled the defendant from July to October 2014 and observed him enter room 208 of the Honeyspot Motor Lodge multiple times.
On October 21, 2014 officers executed a search warrant for room 208; they found the defendant near a TV stand where heroin folds and small Ziploc bags of crack cocaine (packaged in $10/$20 amounts) were in an Altoids tin and $36 cash on the TV stand.
The defendant ran into the bathroom when officers entered, threw four $10 bills into the bathtub, and was arrested; a small quantity of marijuana and a bill were found on his person.
Nevin Lowe was also present and seated near the TV stand; officers seized a bag from his chair containing packaging baggies and marijuana but no heroin or cocaine.
Men’s clothing found in the room would have fit the defendant but not Lowe; surveillance officers had not observed Lowe at the motel during the prior months and had made controlled purchases from the defendant.
The jury convicted the defendant of possession of narcotics (heroin and cocaine merged) and possession of less than four ounces of marijuana; the court sentenced him to seven years (suspended after five) on the narcotics count and one year concurrent on the marijuana count.

Issue	State's Argument	Bischoff's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession of narcotics (constructive possession)	Evidence (frequenting room, clothing matching defendant, drugs in plain view on TV stand, defendant fled and discarded $10 bills, prior controlled purchases) supports knowledge, dominion, and control	No proof defendant rented or exclusively possessed room or otherwise controlled the drugs; narcotics not found on his person	Affirmed — cumulative circumstantial evidence supported constructive possession beyond a reasonable doubt
Request for third‑party culpability instruction (pointing to Lowe)	State: evidence did not directly connect Lowe to heroin/cocaine or room control; instruction not warranted	Defense: Lowe was arrested and had packaging materials; court should instruct the jury on third‑party culpability	Affirmed — trial court permissibly denied instruction because offered evidence did not directly connect Lowe to the narcotics (at most bare suspicion) and the plea/disposition transcripts were not admitted
Entitlement to resentencing based on 2015 statutory amendment reducing first‑offense possession penalties	State: 2015 amendment does not apply retroactively	Defendant: 2015 amendment reclassified §21a‑279 to a misdemeanor with 1‑year max and should apply	Affirmed — appellate precedent (State v. Moore) holds 2015 amendment does not apply retroactively; resentencing denied

State v. Crespo, 317 Conn. 1 (discusses sufficiency review and circumstantial proof of possession)
State v. Slaughter, 151 Conn. App. 340 (describes constructive possession and need for incriminating circumstances when premises not exclusively possessed)
State v. Baltas, 311 Conn. 786 (standards for admissibility and relevance of third‑party culpability evidence)