State v. Mahon
Decision Date | 11 May 1999 |
Docket Number | (AC 18055) |
Citation | 729 A.2d 242,53 Conn. App. 231 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ABKNELL MAHON |
Foti, Spear and Hennessy, Js. John T. Walkley, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Peter A. McShane, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Kevin T. Kane, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, Abknell Mahon, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of sale of a narcotic substance by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b),1 conspiracy to sell a narcotic substance by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 21a-278 (b), and possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b).2 On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court failed to instruct the jury on an essential element of the charge of sale of a narcotic substance by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of § 21a-278 (b). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On March 10, 1998, Detective Carl Caler of the Willimantic police department was assigned to work undercover for the statewide narcotics task force. The target area on that date was the Greenville section of Norwich. Caler proceeded by motor vehicle to Norwich where he met with Bryant Downs and attempted to purchase crack cocaine from him. Downs, however, did not have the narcotics on his person and entered Caler's vehicle and directed him to the basketball courts on Prospect Street, which are approximately 1390 feet from the Greenville Elementary School.
Downs then exited the car, approached the basketball courts and said to the defendant, who was standing there, "Yo, Abe, give me two." The defendant then handed Downs two small packages, which Downs then sold to Caler after a third party vouched for him, confirming that Caler was not a police officer. The two packages purchased contained cocaine.
The defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the trial court improperly charged the jury on the sale of narcotics count by failing to charge that the state was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the substance that he handed to Downs, which Downs then sold to Caler, was cocaine. Because the defendant neither requested such a charge nor took exception to the charge as given, he has requested review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or, in the alternative, under the plain error doctrine pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.
"It is ... constitutionally axiomatic that the jury be instructed on the essential elements of a crime charged." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477, 483, 668 A.2d 682 (1995). A claim that the trial court failed to instruct the jury adequately on an essential element of the crime charged necessarily involves the defendant's due process rights and implicates the fairness of his trial. State v. Anderson, 212 Conn. 31, 36, 561 A.2d 897 (1989). We will, therefore, review this claim.
The trial court instructed the jury as to the first count of sale of a narcotic substance by explaining that there The trial court then instructed the jury as to the third count charged, possession of a controlled substance with intent to sell within fifteen hundred feet of a school, as follows: The defendant concedes that knowledge is not an expressed statutory element of the crime of sale of narcotics but submits that, impliedly, knowledge must be included as an essential element in the trial court's charge to the jury.
The defendant relies on a number of cases in support of his claim, including State v. Delossantos, 211 Conn. 258, 277, 559 A.2d 164, cert. denied, 493 U.S. 866, 110 S. Ct. 188, 107 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1989), State v. Goodrum, 39 Conn. App. 526, 532, 665 A.2d 159, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 929, 667 A.2d 554 (1995), and State v. Johnson, 26 Conn. App. 779, 784, 603 A.2d 440, cert. denied, 221 Conn. 925, 608 A.2d 690 (1992). Those cases, however, deal with the crime of possession of a narcotic substance with the intent to sell, which includes the element of knowledge. See State v. Delossantos, supra, 277 ( ).
A person may possess narcotics without intending to sell them, or possess narcotics legally and sell them illegally, or sell narcotics without possessing them, making the crimes different offenses. State v. Devino, 195 Conn. 70, 75, 485 A.2d 1302 (1985). ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Gooden
..."the crime of possession of a narcotic substance with the intent to sell . . . includes the element of knowledge." State v. Mahon, 53 Conn. App. 231, 235, 729 A.2d 242 (1999). Reviewing the court's charge on the offense of possession of narcotics with intent to sell by a person who is not d......
-
State v. Gayle
...that the defendant knowingly sold the substance to another person and that the substance sold was a narcotic." State v. Mahon, 53 Conn. App. 231, 236, 729 A.2d 242 (1999). "Proof of the exact nature of the substances upon which the prosecution is grounded, of course, is necessary, and the n......
-
United States v. Epps
...of a narcotic substance with intent to sell requires proof that the defendant possessed a narcotic substance." State v. Mahon , 53 Conn.App. 231, 729 A.2d 242, 244 (1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). But, as the Second Circuit reasoned in Savage , an offer to sell a narc......
-
Sandella v. Dick Corp.
... ... In approximately March, 1990, after the construction on the plant had begun, Weston resigned. Maguire did not have any employees who had the state license required to operate the plant. As a courtesy to the town, Maguire contacted Metcalf & Eddy Services, Inc. (Services, Inc.). 3 Services, ... ...