193 Conn.App. 564
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- On August 18, 2014, Hamden police on bicycles approached a van parked behind bushes in a vacant lot in an area known for drug activity.
- Defendant (front seat passenger) quickly reached behind the driver’s seat as officers approached and produced a used car magazine when asked.
- Officer observed two bundles of heroin on the center console next to the defendant’s left leg; search recovered 94 small glassine bags, a larger Ziploc of heroin, Super Mannitol (mixing agent), plates/strain ers, and other packaging materials.
- Driver (McGee) had multiple small baggies on her person; another occupant had heroin on him; defendant had no drugs on his person.
- Defendant was tried by jury, convicted of possession of a narcotic substance (acquitted of intent-to-sell and conspiracy), sentenced, and appealed on sufficiency grounds; appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove constructive possession of narcotics | State: Circumstantial evidence (secluded parking, area known for drug traffic, defendant’s furtive reach, drugs next to his leg, mixing agent and packaging nearby) shows knowledge and dominion/control over at least some narcotics | Crewe: Vehicle was nonexclusive; no drugs on his person; furtive movement and proximity insufficient—invokes Fermaint as controlling precedent | Affirmed: Totality of circumstances reasonably supported inference that defendant knew of and exercised dominion/control over at least some heroin; conviction upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Andriulaitis, 169 Conn. App. 286 (2016) (standard of review for sufficiency of the evidence)
- State v. Leniart, 166 Conn. App. 142 (2016) (on construing evidence in light most favorable to verdict and inferences)
- State v. Walcott, 184 Conn. App. 863 (2018) (requirements for proving constructive possession where place is nonexclusive)
- State v. Niemeyer, 258 Conn. 510 (2001) (limits on permissible inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- State v. Ford, 230 Conn. 686 (1994) (deference to jury in weighing common experience and inferences)
- State v. Fermaint, 91 Conn. App. 650 (2005) (reversing where nexus between defendant and drugs was minimal)
- United States v. Batista-Polanco, 927 F.2d 14 (1st Cir. 1991) (factfinder may infer conspirators would not welcome innocent nonparticipants)