161 Conn.App. 708
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Police surveilled 429 Main Street in Danbury and obtained a narcotics search warrant targeting the defendant.
- Nova visited the apartment daily; police believed it was his residence and that he had access to the unit’s common areas.
- On October 3, 2012, officers observed Nova enter the apartment, go to a balcony, then re-enter the unit and later meet a driver in the parking lot.
- The driver appeared to snort something after the meeting, but no drugs were observed and no stop was made of the truck.
- A search of the apartment uncovered cocaine and paraphernalia in common areas; documents bearing Nova’s name were also found.
- The trial court found constructive possession based on several incriminating circumstances; Nova was not in exclusive possession of the apartment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of constructive possession? | State: facts show dominion and knowledge of drugs present. | Nova: no compelling link between presence and control; lacks direct possession. | No; insufficient evidence to prove constructive possession. |
| Does being a target of investigation permit an inference of guilt? | State: targeting reflects credibility of incriminating circumstances. | Nova: status as target cannot prove possession or guilt. | Target status cannot support constructive possession inference. |
| Do mere presence on kitchen/balcony establish dominion and control? | State: proximity to drugs and paraphernalia supports inference. | Nova: proximity alone is insufficient without evidentiary linkage. | Not sufficient to establish dominion and control. |
| Does the drive-by meeting with the truck driver support possession? | State: meeting near narcotics plus driver’s later snorting imply drug activity. | Nova: no hands-on exchange or evidence of possession. | Not enough to infer constructive possession. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Billie, 123 Conn. App. 690 (2010) (incriminating circumstances must buttress possession inference when not in exclusive possession)
- State v. Gainey, 116 Conn. App. 710 (2009) (focus on relationship to contraband rather than apartment for constructive possession)
- State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (suspicious movements toward contraband bolster possession inference)
- State v. Goodrum, 39 Conn. App. 526 (1995) (carrying bag into apartment and subsequent discovery supports inference)
- State v. Forde, 52 Conn. App. 159 (1999) (drug sale near contraband can support constructive possession)
- State v. Fermaint, 91 Conn. App. 650 (2005) (furtive movement insufficient without evidence of transfer)