State v. McNeil, 154 Conn.App. 727

Defendant was convicted after a jury trial of possession of narcotics, possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia, and larceny in the sixth degree.
Officer Goncalves stopped the defendant’s vehicle on Main Street after observing unregistered status and Colorado plates; the vehicle owner claimed ownership by the defendant.
An inventory search revealed in the trunk stolen Connecticut plates and a scale containing cocaine residue, later tested and confirmed as cocaine.
The scale and cocaine were found in a vehicle the defendant said he owned and drove; the defendant had sole claimed use of the vehicle.
The cocaine was visible as a white powder on the scale used to weigh narcotics, suggesting intent to sell; the scale contained cocaine residue.
The trial court’s jury instructions and a post-deliberation question from the jury prompted appellate review of sufficiency, vagueness, and misinstruction concerns.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for possession and larceny	McNeil asserts insufficient evidence of dominion and knowledge of contents.	McNeil contends minimal evidence and lack of proof of knowledge or intent.	Evidence sufficient to support knowing possession and larceny
Vagueness of § 21a-279(a) as applied	McNeil argues ‘any’ quantity lacks notice and creates arbitrary enforcement.	McNeil contends statute is vague and unworkable; allows discretionary enforcement.	Statute provides fair warning; no vagueness given the plain language and precedent
Jury instruction adequacy following a note	McNeil contends the supplemental answer misled by not addressing knowledge of the quantity.	State argues the court answered the jury's precise question lawfully.	Supplemental instruction correct in law; not reasonably misleading

State v. McCarthy, 25 Conn. App. 624 (1991) (any quantity suffices; no minimum amount required)
State v. Fletcher, 10 Conn. App. 697 (1987) (question from foreperson; evaluating supplemental instruction)
State v. Slaughter, 151 Conn. App. 340 (2014) (constructive possession and evidence in non-exclusive possession cases)
State v. Connelly, 194 Conn. 589 (1984) (phrase 'any quantity' signals criminalization of any amount)
State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753 (2010) (vagueness doctrine—the right to fair warning and avoidance of arbitrary enforcement)
State v. Johnson, 26 Conn. App. 779 (1992) (possession with intent to sell requires knowledge of the substance)
State v. Papandrea, 120 Conn. App. 224 (2010) (larceny elements; specific intent required)