State v. Polanco, 126 Conn. App. 323

Police conducted a spring 2008 narcotics investigation at 287 Main Street, Willimantic, focusing on apartment 107.
Warrants were executed on April 22, 2008, after undercover purchases led to the search.
During the search, a booking photograph of Polanco taken at booking on April 22, 2008 was lost; defense claimed this could affect identification credibility.
Evidence found included cocaine, inositol cutting agent, a digital scale, packaging material, cash, and a wireless camera system; a controlled narcotics purchase was arranged from inside apartment 107.
Polanco was convicted of (1) possession with intent to sell by a person not drug-dependent, (2) possession with intent to sell, and (3) possession of drug paraphernalia; sentences totaled ten years with five years mandatory and ten years special parole, with the second count also ten years to serve.
On appeal, Polanco challenged (a) loss/destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence violating due process under the state constitution, and (b) double jeopardy due to sentencing/merger of greater and lesser included offenses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process violation from loss of booking photo	Polanco argues state’s failure to preserve booking photo violated article I, § 8, of CT Constitution	State contends loss was inadvertent, not prejudicial, not violating due process	No state constitutional due process violation; factors show no material prejudice
Double jeopardy and merger of greater/lesser offenses	Counts 1 and 2 are lesser and greater included offenses; merger/vacation of lesser sentence required	Unpreserved claim; argues improper sentencing under Blockburger; merits Golding review	Conviction on lesser included offense merged into greater; sentence for lesser vacated; judgment affirmed in part and reversed/ remanded in part

State v. Mullins, 288 Conn. 345, 952 A.2d 784 (Conn. 2008) (merger of lesser included offense with greater offense; vacate lesser sentence)
State v. Morales, 232 Conn. 707, 657 A.2d 585 (Conn. 1995) (balancing test for destruction/loss of potentially useful evidence under state constitution)
State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695, 478 A.2d 227 (Conn. 1984) (state constitution due process balancing framework for missing evidence)
State v. Valentine, 240 Conn. 395, 692 A.2d 727 (Conn. 1997) (Asherman framework factors guidance for missing evidence)
State v. Joyce, 243 Conn. 282, 705 A.2d 181 (Conn. 1997) (context for missing evidence and prejudice analysis)
State v. Estrella, 277 Conn. 458, 893 A.2d 348 (Conn. 2006) (materiality/prejudice framework for missing evidence)
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (U.S. 1963) (suppression of favorable evidence regardless of good/bad faith)
Arizona v. Youngblood, 488 U.S. 51, 109 S. Ct. 333, 102 L. Ed. 2d 281 (U.S. 1988) (no due process violation absent bad faith unless evidence destroyed)