State v. Johnson, 137 Conn. App. 733

On Oct. 25, 2010, a jury found Jennifer Johnson guilty of conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to sell, possession of narcotics, conspiracy to possess narcotics, possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia; sentences run concurrently with a one-year marijuana sentence.
Three controlled purchases of Roxicodone occurred at Johnson’s 3 Hill Street apartment (with Burbridge) in March–April 2008 via confidential informant Carroll.
A search warrant executed June 24, 2008 at the same address uncovered numerous narcotics; Burbridge’s pills were found on her person and in the apartment, with Johnson sharing the residence.
Johnson was charged with multiple counts including conspiracy to possess narcotics and conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to sell; the jury acquitted some charges and convicted others.
On appeal, Johnson challenged sufficiency of evidence, double jeopardy for dual conspiracy convictions, jury instructions on constructive possession, and disclosure of sealed records; the court vacated one conspiracy conviction and remanded for resentencing under the aggregate package theory.
The court ultimately held that Johnson’s conspiracy to possess narcotics was the lesser included offense and vacated that conviction, while preserving the conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to sell conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession and conspiracies	Johnson argues insufficient evidence to sustain possession and conspiracy convictions.	Johnson contends lack of reliable proof of agreement and possession.	Evidence sufficient for possession and conspiracies.
Double jeopardy for conspiracy counts	Conspiracy to possess narcotics and conspiracy to possess narcotics with intent to sell are separate offenses.	Two conspiracy convictions violate double jeopardy since one is lesser included.	Vacate the lesser conspiracy conviction; remand for aggregate package resentencing on the greater conspiracy.
Instructional error on constructive possession	Proposed instructions on constructive possession were correct and comprehensive.	Trial court failed to give nonexclusive possession language and proper dominion/control elements.	Claim waived; instructional error not preserved.
Disclosure of confidential records for cross-exam	Court should disclose all relevant sealed records for cross-examination.	Defendant sought broader access to confidential records.	Court did not abuse discretion; access appropriately limited.

State v. Wade, 297 Conn. 262 (2010) (aggregate package theory guidance for remand and sentencing)
State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699 (1990) (double jeopardy and merging lesser offenses with greater offenses)
Rutledge v. United States, 517 U.S. 292 (1996) (congressional intent and lesser included offenses; vacating convictions)
State v. Mullins, 288 Conn. 345 (2008) ( Rutledge-inspired double jeopardy analysis in CT)