State v. Herring
151 Conn.App. 154
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Federal agents intercepted a 260-pound shipment addressed to a fictitious "Jim Bernard Garage" and arranged a controlled delivery to 21 Austin Street, New Britain (property owned by Herring).
- Surveillance showed Herring posting a "Jim’s Garage" sign, conducting countersurveillance, alerting a coconspirator, helping unload the package, and storing it in his garage; he accepted $1,400 to take delivery.
- Officers arrested Herring after delivery, found a garage remote on his person that opened the garage revealing the package, and obtained a signed written statement in which Herring admitted countersurveillance, helping unload, accepting payment, and that he "knew this wasn’t going to be good."
- Forensic testing showed the package contained 102 pounds of marijuana. Herring was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to distribute one kilogram or more of marijuana and possession of one kilogram or more with intent to sell as an accessory.
- On appeal Herring challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence as to knowledge of contents and weight, (2) the trial court’s jury instruction on knowledge, and (3) prosecutorial impropriety during closing argument.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Herring's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency — knowledge of contents (both counts) | Circumstantial evidence (fictitious addressee/sign, countersurveillance, unloading, payment, written admission) permits inference Herring knew package contained marijuana | Evidence insufficient; no direct proof he knew the package specifically contained marijuana | Affirmed — jury reasonably could infer knowledge from cumulative circumstantial evidence (following State v. Martin) |
| Sufficiency — knowledge of quantity (one kilogram+) | Circumstantial facts (bill of lading ~260 lbs, heavy package moved by dolly, 102 lbs recovered) allow inference Herring knew package contained >1 kg for conspiracy count | Insufficient evidence he knew the package contained one kilogram or more | Affirmed — quantity inference reasonable for conspiracy; knowledge of weight not required element for accessory conviction under §21a-278(b) |
| Jury instruction on "knowledge" (claimed lowering of burden) | Instruction correctly defined "knowingly" and allowed inference from circumstances | Court’s instruction permitted conviction based on what a reasonable person would have known, lowering state’s burden; requested Golding review | Waived — defendant had meaningful opportunity to review and affirmatively accepted instructions; claim not reviewed on merits |
| Prosecutorial comments in closing (impropriety) | Argued prosecutor’s remarks that defendant knew there was "something illegal" and that his statement alone was enough were fair inferences from evidence | Remarks improperly misstated law and could mislead jury about specificity of knowledge and reliance on statement alone | No prosecutorial impropriety — arguments were fair, based on evidence and reasonable inferences; did not mislead jury |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Martin, 285 Conn. 135 (Conn. 2008) (circumstantial evidence may support inference defendant knew package contained narcotics where defendant actively participated in delivery)
- State v. Bruno, 293 Conn. 127 (Conn. 2009) (to convict for possession with intent, state must prove defendant knew the character of the substance)
- State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (Conn. 2005) (conspiracy requires specific intent to bring about each element of the underlying offense)
- State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477 (Conn. 1995) (legislature’s omission of knowledge requirement indicates knowledge of quantity is not element unless statute specifies)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (defendant may implicitly waive jury-charge objections by affirmatively accepting instructions after meaningful review)
- State v. Otto, 305 Conn. 51 (Conn. 2012) (standards for reviewing prosecutorial impropriety; prosecutors afforded latitude but may not misstate law)