For Criminal Law Help Click This Line
Case: State v. Ray (SC 17905) March 2009
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Trial Court: Stamford
Synopsis: Although he denied using drugs and held down a job at times, the defendant was found to be drug dependent as he was in and out of treatment since the 1980’s and recently had been unfavorably discharged from a rehab program. The court also held that the State did not have to prove a lack of drug dependency beyond a reasonable doubt even though the penalties are greater for non-drug dependent persons.
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR16S.pdf
Tags: cocaine · drug dependent · drugs · narcotics
For Criminal Law Help Click This Line
Case: State v. Wilson (AC 28554) December 2008
Court: Connecticut Appellate Court
Trial Court: Bridgeport
Synopsis: A warrantless search of a vehicle was constitutional under the following conditions: (1) an individual told an undercover police officer that a man would be arriving with crack cocaine for sale; (2) the driver arrived moments later in a vehicle; (3) the driver walked into a restaurant and sold crack cocaine to several persons, including the undercover officer; (4) the driver left the restaurant and immediately walked back toward his vehicle; (5) the dreiver fled after seeing a police officer, throwing away a cell phone that contained packets of crack cocaine; (6) the defendant was searched and had a key to the vehicle.
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP111/111AP74.pdf
Tags: cocaine · crack cocaine · criminal law · drugs · search
For Criminal Law Help Click This Line
Case: State v. Ray (SC 17905) January 2009
Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
Trial Court: Stamford
Synopsis: In a cocaine sale case, the court held it is not unconstitutional to require that a defendant charged with sale of narcotics prove as an affirmative defense that he or she is not drug dependent. The court stated that it is not the absence of drug dependency that increases the range of punishment to which the accused is exposed under § 21a-277 (a), sale of narcotics, but rather, it is the presence of drug dependency that decreases the range of punishment to which the accused is exposed under § 21a-278 (b), sale of narcotics by a non-drug dependent person.
Case Link: http://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR290/290CR16.pdf
Tags: criminal law · drug · drug dependent · drugs · narcotics · sale
