State v. Stovall, 2013 WL 1883188

Bridgeport police executed a warrant at Greene Homes, apartment 449, on Jan 16, 2010, detaining five adults including Stovall.
Crack cocaine was found in a pocket of a heavy winter coat in Patrick’s hallway closet; the coat was claimed by Patrick to belong to Stovall.
Jury found Stovall guilty on possession with intent to sell by a non-drug-dependent person and possession with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a public housing project, plus two firearm counts.
The jacket with drugs was not collected; ownership and control of the jacket were disputed at trial.
On appeal, Stovall challenges (1) constructive possession, (2) intent-to-sell within 1500 feet, (3) jury instruction on the 1500-foot element, and (4) confrontation rights related to the toxicology report.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Constructive possession: sufficient evidence that defendant knew of and controlled the drugs	State argues circumstantial evidence links jacket to Stovall.	Stovall contends jacket ownership and control were not shown.	Yes; sufficient evidence supports constructive possession.
Intent to sell within 1500 feet: sufficiency of evidence that sale occurred within 1500 feet	State argues packaging and area near Greene Homes show intent to sell there.	Stovall contends no proof of intent to sell at the location.	Yes; evidence supports intent-to-sell within 1500 feet.
Jury instruction: whether omission/ambiguous instruction regarding location element misled the jury	State and defense offered competing formulations; ambiguity risk exist.	Court should have instructed that intent to sell must occur within 1500 feet.	Reversible error; new trial ordered on the 1500-foot count.
Confrontation: admissibility of reviewing analyst’s certificate under confrontation clause	State argues error was harmless or waived.	Right to confrontation violated by signature certification without defense impact.	Harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; Golding analysis applied.

State v. Hernandez, 254 Conn. 659 (2000) (possession requires knowledge and dominion over drug)
State v. Butler, 296 Conn. 62 (2010) (nonexclusive possession and inferences from presence)
State v. Padua, 273 Conn. 138 (2005) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency and credibility review)
State v. Leon-Zazueta, 80 Conn. App. 678 (2003) (need more than mere temporal/spatial nexus to convict)
State v. Hedge, 297 Conn. 621 (2010) (interpretation of 21a-278a(b) elements; location requirement)
State v. Lewis, 303 Conn. 760 (2012) (requiring evidence of intent to sell at a location within 1500 feet)
State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477 (1995) (due process and element clarity in charges)
State v. Devalda, 306 Conn. 494 (2012) (reversible error analysis for improper instructions)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (framework for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785 (2005) (confrontation rights and harmless error)