OLR Report 2013-R-0219 summarizes the Connecticut Supreme Court's decision in State v. Lewis, 303 Conn. 760 (2012).
In this case, the defendant was stopped because he matched the description of a robbery suspect and arrested because of an outstanding warrant. He was charged with four drug offenses when a search following his arrest revealed numerous small bags of crack cocaine, empty bags, a razor blade, and cash. He was charged with narcotic possession with intent to sell, drug paraphernalia possession, and two offenses that enhance penalties for committing these acts near an elementary or secondary school.
At trial, a jury found him guilty of all four offenses. However, the Appellate Court remanded the case because the jury had not been properly instructed on the specific intent required for each of these four offenses. Additionally, regarding the enhanced penalties for acts near schools, it found that the prosecution presented insufficient evidence to establish that (1) the defendant intended to sell drugs where he was arrested and (2) the nearby school was an elementary or secondary school.
A majority of the Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Court that the jury was improperly instructed and the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant intended to sell drugs where he was arrested near a school. The court stated that while the defendant may have been equipped to sell drugs “somewhere,” there was an “[in]adequate basis for concluding that the place the defendant intended to sell narcotics was the place of his arrest” (303 Conn. at 771). The court disagreed with the Appellate Court's conclusion that there was insufficient evidence showing the school in question was an elementary or secondary school. Relying on testimony interrupted by an objection but not stricken from the record, the court held the jury was capable of inferring that the school in question was an elementary or secondary school, an element of the two offenses that enhance penalties for drug crimes. As a result, the court ordered (1) the defendant to be retried on paraphernalia possession near a school and (2) a verdict of not guilty on intent to sell drugs near a school.
Justices Eveleigh and Vertefeuille concurred in part, but dissented on the issue of the school's status as an elementary or secondary school.
For more information, read the full report.
