State v. Hawkins
| Decision Date | 30 August 1977 |
| Citation | 173 Conn. 431,378 A.2d 534 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Perry HAWKINS, Jr. |
E. Eugene Spear, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were Donald A. Browne, State's Atty., and Walter D. Flanagan, Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
The defendant appealed from a judgment of the Superior Court entered September 13, 1974, on a jury verdict of guilty returned on an information charging him with three counts of selling cocaine in violation of 1973 Public Acts, No. 73-681, § 26(a), and one count of controlling cocaine in violation of 1972 Public Acts, No. 278, § 26(a). He was sentenced to the correctional institution at Somers for an effective term of not less than ten years nor more than twenty years. Although in his preliminary statement of issues the defendant made numerous claims of error, he has briefed only two of them, asserting that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury on entrapment and in admitting the testimony of a toxicologist concerning the analysis of substances which the state claimed were cocaine. The claims of error which have not been briefed are considered abandoned. State v. Crawford, 172 Conn. 65, 66, 372 A.2d 154; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 265, 368 A.2d 222.
There was evidence from which the jury could have found the following facts: Charles Walkley worked as an undercover narcotics agent for the southwest regional crime squad from September, 1973, through April, 1974. On March 30, 1974, after reporting to headquarters in Bridgeport, he drove to Stamford at approximately 10:30 a. m. to buy narcotics. He arrived at the Duchess Restaurant at about 12:30 p. m. and met with Melvin Collins, whom he had previously known. Stamford police officer Michael Moon was covering him. After a discussion with Collins about purchasing narcotics, Walkley then met the defendant Perry Hawkins, Jr. Walkley had never met or seen the defendant before. Walkley and the defendant were in Walkley's automobile in the presence of Collins conversing about narcotics sales when Walkley told the defendant that he understood the defendant could find some cocaine for him. The defendant said he could and Walkley agreed to buy $75 worth. Pursuant to instructions from the defendant, Walkley drove to 20 Orchard Street in Stamford. When the three men arrived there, the defendant left the car, entered the house and returned saying that it would be a few minutes because his sister was packaging it. The defendant again left the car and returned with a tinfoil packet containing a white powder substance. After observing the contents of the packets, Walkley paid the defendant $75. Walkley then drove back to the Duchess Restaurant, taking with him the defendant and Collins. Before the defendant left Walkley, he asked him if he would be back for more. Walkley said he would get in touch with the defendant if the "coke" was good. The defendant then wrote his phone number on a piece of paper for Walkley. Later the same day, Walkley met with covering officer Moon and examined several photographs Moon had brought with him. Walkley selected a photograph of the defendant as the man from whom he had purchased the narcotics earlier in the day.
Walkley subsequently, by arrangement, met with the defendant on two additional days, April 1, 1974, and April 3, 1974, and on each occasion purchased cocaine from him.
The evening before the second transaction on April 1, 1974, Walkley telephoned the defendant at the number the defendant had given him and arranged to meet the defendant the next morning in front of the Duchess Restaurant. Walkley's examination of the Southern New England Telephone Company book revealed that the number he had been given was listed to 20 Orchard Street in Stamford. When they met, the defendant entered Walkley's car, and Walkley expressed his interest in making another identical purchase. Walkley, again covered and observed by Officer Moon, followed the defendant's car to Orchard Street. En route, the cars were joined by a car driven by the defendant's sister, Patricia Parham. Walkley parked his car and waited while the defendant and his sister entered the house together. The defendant came out shortly, explaining that it would be a few moments. He, thereafter, returned and gave Walkley the cocaine in exchange for $83 telling Walkley to contact him should he want more.
The third transaction occurred on April 3, 1974. Walkley called the number previously given to him and discussed a $75 purchase with the defendant. The defendant declined to go and meet Walkley stating that Walkley could come right to his house and pick up the merchandise. Walkley drove to Orchard Street, again covered by Officer Moon. There the defendant handed Walkley a foil packet containing cocaine in exchange for $75.
After each transaction, Walkley returned to Bridgeport where he field tested and processed the contents of the packets he had purchased from the defendant which were then transmitted to the state toxicological laboratory where, upon analysis, they were each found to contain cocaine.
The defendant's first claim is that the court erred in refusing to charge the jury on the law of entrapment, although the defendant filed a request for such a charge. In State v. McNally, 173 Conn. 197, 377 A.2d 286, we had recent occasion to discuss the doctrine of entrapment, the statute relating to it, General Statutes § 53a-15, 1 and our decisions on that defense since it was first argued in this court in State v. Marquardt,139 Conn. 1, 5, 89 A.2d 219. It is unnecessary to repeat what we said so recently in the McNally case about the defense of entrapment. In that case, the defendant admitted the sales of the proscribed drug but claimed that he had made the sales at the request of the undercover officer who made the purchases and that he would not have made the sales if he had known that the purchaser was a policeman. We expressed some doubt that in the circumstances of that case the defendant was entitled to the charge on entrapment which the court gave, but there was at least a modicum of evidence that the defendant was induced to commit a crime which he did not contemplate and would not have committed if it had not been for the inducement of the undercover officer. In the present case, however, we find no evidence whatsoever which would require a charge on entrapment and the defendant's brief contains no reference to any, although § 631A(c)(1) of the Practice Book requires that when error is claimed in the trial court's refusal to charge as requested the party claiming error shall print in his brief "in narrative form any evidence which he claims would entitle him to such charge, with appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Golodner, No. 18826.
...the defendant has not admitted to any crime; [see State v. Grant, 8 Conn.App. 158, 164, 511 A.2d 369 (1986); State v. Hawkins, [173 Conn. 431, 435–37, 378 A.2d 534 (1977) ]; also under [State v. McNally, 173 Conn. 197, 200–203, 377 A.2d 286 (1977) ], the circumstances of this case, the defe......
-
State v. Lee
...89 A.2d 219. Since its codification, § 53a-15 has consistently been interpreted to impose a subjective standard. See State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 378 A.2d 534 (1977), habeas corpus granted on other grounds, 617 F.Supp. 932, rev'd, 806 F.2d 39 (2d Cir. Conn.1986), cert. denied, 481 U.S. ......
-
Com. v. Tracey
...and also assert the defense of entrapment. See, e.g., Young v. State, 308 Ark. 647, 651-652, 826 S.W.2d 814 (1992); State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 436, 378 A.2d 534 (1977). Under this view, the entrapment defense may be raised only where the defendant admits doing the deed but disclaims t......
-
State v. Zayas, 2685
...704, 707, 425 A.2d 108 (1979) ]. Requests to charge have been denied where such admissions have been lacking. See State v. Hawkins, 173 Conn. 431, 436, 378 A.2d 534 (1977) (entrapment); State v. Avery, 152 Conn. 582, 584, 211 A.2d 165 (1965) (entrapment). We have held, with respect to affir......