State v. Martin
Decision Date | 22 January 2008 |
Docket Number | No. 17802.,17802. |
Citation | 939 A.2d 524,285 Conn. 135 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Andre D. MARTIN. |
Arthur L. Ledford, special public defender, for the appellee (defendant).
NORCOTT, KATZ, PALMER, VERTEFEUILLE and ZARELLA, Js.
The principal issue in this certified appeal is whether the state introduced sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a permissive inference by the jury that the defendant had knowledge that a package contained illegal narcotics, considering the defendant's actions before, during and after a controlled delivery of the package. The state appeals, following our grant of certification,1 from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court's judgment, rendered after a jury trial, convicting the defendant, Andre D. Martin, of attempt to possess one kilogram or more of marijuana with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b)2 and 53a-49 (a),3 possession of four ounces or more of a cannabis-type substance in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (b),4 and conspiracy to possess one kilogram or more of marijuana with the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b) and 53a-48 (a).5 State v. Martin, 98 Conn.App. 458 459-60, 909 A.2d 547 (2006). On appeal, the state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that the defendant was guilty of the charged offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree with the state. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court for consideration of the defendant's remaining claims on appeal.
The opinion of the Appellate Court sets forth the following facts that the jury reasonably could have found, and the relevant procedural history. "At the end of May, 2003, Donahue Hibbert, a special agent assigned to the Bridgeport office of the federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) was contacted by Thomas Barbee an agent with the Tucson, Arizona, office of the DEA. Barbee contacted Hibbert regarding a suspicious package that had been left at the Yellow Freight Company (Yellow Freight) in Tucson to mail to an address in Bridgeport. Although the address to which the package was to be mailed existed, a background investigation revealed that the name to whom the package was addressed was fictitious. On either May 31 or June 1, 2003, the DEA agreed to allow the package to be routed to Connecticut, but with delivery at the Yellow Freight facility in Middletown. No surveillance was conducted on the package in route.
The surveillance team maintained sight of the vehicles until they reached their destination.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Martinez
...view of the evidence that supports the [finder of fact's] verdict of guilty.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Martin, 285 Conn. 135, 147–48, 939 A.2d 524, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 859, 129 S.Ct. 133, 172 L.Ed.2d 101 (2008).A We first address the defendant's claim that the state f......
-
State v. Jones
...was located. Second, the defendant's DNA and fingerprints were on the firearm, further linking him to the weapon. See State v. Martin , 285 Conn. 135, 150, 939 A.2d 524, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 859, 129 S. Ct. 133, 172 L. Ed. 2d 101 (2008) ("mere presence is not enough to support an inferenc......
-
State v. Elson
...not only the evidence presented during the state's case-in-chief but the defendant's testimony as well. See State v. Martin, 285 Conn. 135, 143 n. 11, 939 A.2d 524, cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 133, 172 L.Ed.2d 101, after remand, 110 Conn. App. 171, 954 A.2d 256, cert. granted on o......
-
State v. Jamison
...incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Martin, 285 Conn. 135, 150, 939 A.2d 524, cert. denied, 555 U.S. 859, 129 S.Ct. 133, 172 L.Ed.2d 101 (2008).In the present case, the trial court instructed the jury......