State v. Chisolm
| Decision Date | 05 June 1973 |
| Citation | 328 A.2d 677,165 Conn. 83 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Earl CHISOLM. |
Igor I. Sikorsky, Jr., Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
George D. Stoughton, Chief Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was John D. LaBelle, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C.J., and SHAPIRO, LOISELLE, MacDONALD and BOGDANSKI, JJ.
On a trial to the court, 1 the defendant was found guilty of the crimes of (1) possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of §§ 19-480(a) and 19-452 of the General Statutes; (2) possessing a narcotic drug in violation of §§ 19-481(a) and 19-452; (3) possessing marijuana with intent to sell in violation of §§ 19-480(a) and 19-452; and (4) having a controlled drug other than a narcotic drug under his control in violation of §§ 19-481(b) and 19-452.
All other assignments of error having been abandoned either by the defendant's failure to brief them; State v. Grayton, 163 Conn. 104, 109, 302 A.2d 246; or by having been expressly abandoned during oral argument, the sole issue presented for our consideration is the claim that the court erred in concluding from the evidence that the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the foregoing charges. Such a claim is tested by reviewing the evidence printed in the appendices to the briefs together with such exhibits as are made a part of the record on appeal. State v. Delgado, 161 Conn. 536, 540, 290 A.2d 338; State v. Stallings, 154 Conn. 272, 283, 224 A.2d 718; State v. Davis, 153 Conn. 228, 229, 215 A.2d 414. Applying that test to the present case, we find that the trial court had before it evidence sufficient to establish the facts hereinafter set forth.
A large quantity of drugs of the type charged in the information together with materials for packaging drugs was found by the police in a bin in the cellar of a three-family apartment house either wholly owned by the defendant or jointly owned by the defendant and his wife at the time of, and for a period of about ten years prior to, the incident involved here. The defendant had not lived in the building since the early sixties and had rented out the three apartments therein to various tenants. He had been seen in the cellar many times during the four years preceding this incident "carrying things" and walking toward the bin. The bin was secured by a padlock which could be opened by a key found on the person of the defendant when he was arrested for another offense. The defendant's wife never went to the cellar and although the tenants were permitted to use the cellar and some of them had keys to unlock the cellar door padlock, all of them testified either that they did not know whether the bin was locked or that they never had tried to unlock the bin and did not know whether the key to the cellar would fit the padlock on the bin. Although a key belonging to one of the tenants was used to unlock the cellar door padlock to admit the police officers into the cellar, the police were unable to obtain a key to the bin padlock at the time they decided to search the bin and had to force it open. From the foregoing evidence the court concluded that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Williams
...the defendant to the firearm contained therein. See State v. Graham, 186 Conn. 437, 445, 441 A.2d 857 (1982); cf. State v. Chisolm, 165 Conn. 83, 85, 328 A.2d 677 (1973) (insufficient evidence for conviction of possession of narcotics where ''the only evidence of the defendant's culpability......
-
State v. Goodrum
...bag were packaged to sell for $20. The defendant claims that State v. Alfonso, supra, 195 Conn. 624, 490 A.2d 75, and State v. Chisolm, 165 Conn. 83, 328 A.2d 677 (1973), are factually similar cases that support his claim of insufficient evidence. We disagree. In Chisolm, drugs and packagin......
-
State v. Hobson
...was not merely present in the home when the objects were found; see id.; she owned the home and she lived there. See State v. Chisolm, 165 Conn. 83, 84, 328 A.2d 677 (1973) (evidence that defendant possessed narcotics found in locked bin in basement insufficient where defendant did not live......
-
State v. Blyden
...by the defendant to be relevant to his case. The assignments of error not argued in the brief are considered abandoned. State v. Chisholm, 165 Conn. 83, 328 A.2d 677; State v. Ferraro, 164 Conn. 103, 105, 318 A.2d 80; State v. Keeler, 164 Conn. 42, 43, 316 A.2d The state offered evidence to......