State v. Webster, 127 Conn. App. 264

Kenneth Webster was convicted after a jury trial of multiple narcotics offenses in Connecticut, including sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school and possession with intent to sell.
The state alleged and presented evidence that Webster sold crack cocaine to Jeanne Pereira on June 1, 2007, in or near Prospect Street behind St. Francis School in Torrington.
Pereira testified that she met Webster behind the school, purchased crack cocaine, and that Webster later delivered extra cocaine as a commission after she had purchased for others.
Surveillance by Torrington police captured Pereira exiting Webster’s car with cocaine; the officers recovered the drugs and money; Webster fled, was tasered, and apprehended, with drugs found nearby.
The trial court’s judgment was reversed only as to the count alleging sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of the school; other convictions and counts remained affirmed or were not affected by this ruling.
The court addressed multiple legal issues, including sufficiency of evidence for the geographic element, jury instructions on intent, admissibility of prior misconduct testimony, and the defendant’s confrontation rights.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for sale within 1500 feet of a school	State asserted delivery within 1500 feet; route included portions inside and outside the zone	Delivery did not occur within 1500 feet; no specific delivery location proven	Acquittal granted for §21a-278a(b) count; delivery within 1500 feet not proven
Adequacy of jury instruction on intent for possession with intent to sell	Instructions properly defined intent and linked to elements	Instruction failed to properly convey essential element of intent	No constitutional error; instructions were sufficient when viewed as a whole
Admission of Pereira's prior drug-sales testimony	Evidence probative of relationship and knowledge relevant to present offense	Prior misconduct prejudicial and not narrowly tailored	Court did not abuse discretion; probative value outweighed prejudice; admissible as limited prior-act evidence
Defendant's right to confront and present a defense (cross-examination of Pereira)	Cross-examination limits did not impair credibility assessment	Right to test credibility and bias of Pereira was unduly constrained	No Sixth Amendment violation; cross-examination was sufficient and admissible evidence supported credibility evaluation

State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477 (1995) (interpreted § 21a-278a(b) and geographic intent requirement)
State v. Pagan, 100 Conn. App. 671 (2007) (reaffirmed need to prove sale within 1500 feet)
State v. Wassil, 233 Conn. 174 (1995) (defined sale as any form of delivery under § 21a-240(50))
State v. Theriault, 38 Conn. App. 815 (1995) (delivery/sale definitions, scope of sale for narcotics)
State v. Jackson, 13 Conn. App. 288 (1988) (delivery broad concept of sale in narcotics cases)
State v. Orellana, 89 Conn. App. 71 (2005) (prior misconduct evidence relevant to elements of crime)
State v. Beavers, 290 Conn. 386 (2009) (contextual evaluation of evidentiary prejudice)
State v. Crnkovic, 68 Conn. App. 757 (2002) (elements of possession with intent to sell)