151 Conn.App. 340
Conn. App. Ct.2014Background
- Police surveilled Alvin Slaughter outside a second-floor apartment at 839 North Main St., a high-crime, drug-trafficking neighborhood, after an informant tip.
- Officers observed Slaughter repeatedly leave the apartment, approach parked cars at the curb, make brief hand-to-hand contacts, pocket received currency, and return to the apartment; detectives testified this conduct matched a drug-dealing modus operandi.
- Slaughter was stopped in a car and found with two apartment keys and $1,559 in cash (about $1,500 bundled); no drugs were found on his person or in the car.
- Search of the apartment revealed drugs and paraphernalia hidden behind a poster (cocaine, freebase cocaine, marijuana, ecstasy, heroin, digital scale, many sealed baggies) with an estimated street value of $10,000–$15,000; mail to the lessee, Fateema Brit, was also found and Brit later admitted she lived there.
- Slaughter told his probation officer he sometimes stayed at Brit’s apartment; he was tried to the court (waived jury), convicted on four counts of possession with intent to sell, and sentenced to 12 years (execution suspended after 7) plus five years’ probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to prove possession of drugs (constructive possession) | State: surveillance, repeated trips between apartment and buyers, keys, bundled cash, and hidden drugs support inference Slaughter controlled and stored drugs in apartment | Slaughter: no exclusive possession of apartment, drugs not found on person, insufficient evidence he knew of or controlled drugs | Court: affirmed — cumulative circumstantial evidence permitted inference of constructive possession and knowledge |
| Knowledge of presence of all drugs seized (hidden behind poster) | State: drugs were secreted together; sales pattern showed he used apartment as base for distribution | Slaughter: hidden location and co-occupant (Brit) undermine inference he knew of all drugs | Court: affirmed — secrecy of stash plus other incriminating circumstances supported inference of knowledge and control |
| Intent to sell | State: quantity and packaging of drugs, scale, many baggies, and surveillance transactions indicate intent to distribute | Slaughter: (did not challenge intent on appeal) | Court: affirmed — evidence supported intent to sell |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Williams, 110 Conn. App. 778 (Conn. App. 2008) (elements and proof of knowledge, dominion, and constructive possession)
- State v. Nesmith, 24 Conn. App. 158 (Conn. App. 1991) (limits on inferring knowledge/control when possession of premises is shared)
- State v. Polanco, 69 Conn. App. 169 (Conn. App. 2002) (knowledge may be inferred from circumstances even if contraband not in plain sight)
- State v. Goodrum, 39 Conn. App. 526 (Conn. App. 1995) (possession of keys indicates access and control over premises)
- State v. Barber, 64 Conn. App. 659 (Conn. App. 2001) (presence in known drug-trafficking area is probative of intent to sell)
- State v. Boykin, 27 Conn. App. 558 (Conn. App. 1992) (circumstantial evidence is not inherently less probative than direct evidence)