State v. Wilder
17 A.3d 1116
Conn. App. Ct.2011Background
- Undercover Norwich officer McKinney posed as a drug dealer with audio feed and a bag resembling crack cocaine; surveillance by a van team ensured observation.
- Defendant Wilder rode up on a bicycle, initiated contact, and asked for drugs; initial price discussions occurred over three encounters.
- McKinney and others testified Wilder offered $20 for crack; McKinney initially refused, then agreed on the third encounter after Wilder returned with money.
- After the sale, Wilder rode away; investigators signaled completion of the transaction to officers in the van.
- Wilder was charged with attempt to possess crack cocaine and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use; trial resulted in Guilty verdicts.
- Defense argued entrapment; the court denied entrapment instructions and proceeded to verdict on paraphernalia possession.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to entrapment instruction | Wilder alleged inducement by police via three encounters. | Three encounters show inducement necessitating entrapment instruction. | No entrapment instruction required; burden not met. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to use | Conley’s testimony showed Wilder possessed crack pipe in hand at arrest. | No corroborating witness or fingerprints; possession not proven beyond reasonable doubt. | Evidence sufficient; conviction affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431 (1977) (no entrapment instruction where no inducement evidence)
- State v. Marquardt, 139 Conn. 1 (1952) (persistent police coaxing requires entrapment instruction)
- State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582 (1965) (denial of admission supports no entrapment instruction)
- State v. Lee, 229 Conn. 60 (1994) (entrapment is a subjective test; government must originate the criminal design)
- State v. Nero, 122 Conn. App. 763 (2010) (entrapment issue is a factual question for the trier)
- State v. Connelly, 46 Conn. App. 486 (1997) (standard of review for entrapment instructions)
- One Way Fare v. Dept. of Consumer Protection, 96 Conn. App. 780 (2006) (three encounters not necessarily entrapment without persistence)
- State v. Bowens, 118 Conn. App. 112 (2009) (possession may be actual or constructive; direct possession required here)
- State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431 (1977) (entrapment analysis balancing inducement and predisposition)