127 Conn. App. 654
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Police executed a narcotics warrant at 24 Connecticut Avenue, New London, where Grant was observed in front of the residence.
- Grant fled inside and the police used a battering ram to force entry.
- During the search, officers found crack cocaine, pills, scales, packaging, and over $1,400 in cash.
- A Nicole reversal call was answered by an officer posing as the defendant’s girlfriend, leading to an admission that a buyer would arrive in a green car.
- A male buyer in a green vehicle arrived; Noel Soto was arrested for attempted possession of crack cocaine; Grant was then arrested and charged with multiple narcotics offenses.
- Jury found Grant guilty on all counts except one; the court sentenced him to fifteen years with nine years to serve and five years’ probation on a suspended portion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hearsay evidence of the phone call admissible? | State: testimony was admissible as a verbal act, not for truth. | Grant: admission is improper hearsay. | Admissible as verbal act, not hearsay. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession with intent within 1500 feet of a public housing project | State showed Riozzi Court is a public housing project; proximity proved. | Grant: insufficient to prove Riozzi Court is public housing. | Evidence sufficient; Riozzi Court reasonably a public housing project. |
| Vagueness of 'public housing project' definition in § 21a-278a(b) | Plain terms gave notice that elderly/disabled housing falls within scope. | Statute vague as applied; notice/ enforcement questioned. | Definition not void for vagueness; proper notice and enforcement. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. L. W., 122 Conn. App. 324 (Conn. App. 2010) (standard for plenary review of evidentiary admissibility; hearsay vs verbal acts)
- State v. Tolisano, 136 Conn. 210 (Conn. 1949) (admissions by anonymous callers admissible as verbal acts)
- State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218 (Conn. 2004) (verbal acts not hearsay when offered for effect)
- State v. Kalman, 93 Conn. App. 129 (Conn. App. 2006) (vagueness review under state jurisprudence)
- State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477 (Conn. 1995) (notice of proscribed conduct need not prove knowledge of distance)