State v. Corvo

Supreme Court of Connecticut

State v. Corvo

374 A.2d 1050, 172 Conn. 414, 1977 Conn. LEXIS 909

CourtSupreme Court of Connecticut

DecidedFebruary 15, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 374 A.2d 1050 (State v. Corvo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Connecticut primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Corvo, 374 A.2d 1050, 172 Conn. 414, 1977 Conn. LEXIS 909 (Colo. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

A jury found the defendant, Wayne V. Corvo, guilty of the crime of illegal possession of heroin, in violation of G-eneral Statutes §19-481 (a). From the judgment rendered the defendant has appealed raising the single issue of whether the trial court committed error in charging the jury on the definition of “possession.”

*415 At the trial there was evidence presented to prove that the defendant and two other persons went to Willimantie in a motor vehicle for the purpose of purchasing heroin for their own use. A state policeman stopped the vehicle and the defendant was observed in the left rear seat with a belt around his arm. A syringe, tweezers, bottle cap cooker, and a tinfoil package containing a residue of heroin were all found in the rear passenger compartment of the vehicle where the defendant was seated.

The court read the pertinent portion of the applicable statute defining the crime with which the defendant was charged and correctly instructed the jury that “[t]o establish that the defendant had possession ... it was necessary to prove that he had exercised dominion and control over the substance, had knowledge of its presence and had knowledge of its narcotic character.” The court also explained the meaning of constructive possession. The only exception taken to the charge was that the court confused the word “control” with “possession.” There is no merit to this claim. The court correctly charged the jury. State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322, 335, 363 A.2d 72; State v. Avila, 166 Conn. 569, 573, 353 A.2d 776; State v. Harris, 159 Conn. 521, 531, 271 A.2d 74, cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 1019, 91 S. Ct. 578, 27 L. Ed. 2d 630. Furthermore, viewing the charge as a whole it had no tendency to mislead the jury. State v. Tropiano, 158 Conn. 412, 433, 262 A.2d 147, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 949, 90 S. Ct. 1866, 26 L. Ed. 2d 288.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

A jury found the defendant, Wayne V. Corvo, guilty of the crime of illegal possession of heroin, in violation of G-eneral Statutes §19-481 (a). From the judgment rendered the defendant has appealed raising the single issue of whether the trial court committed error in charging the jury on the definition of “possession.”

*415 At the trial there was evidence presented to prove that the defendant and two other persons went to Willimantie in a motor vehicle for the purpose of purchasing heroin for their own use. A state policeman stopped the vehicle and the defendant was observed in the left rear seat with a belt around his arm. A syringe, tweezers, bottle cap cooker, and a tinfoil package containing a residue of heroin were all found in the rear passenger compartment of the vehicle where the defendant was seated.

The court read the pertinent portion of the applicable statute defining the crime with which the defendant was charged and correctly instructed the jury that “[t]o establish that the defendant had possession ... it was necessary to prove that he had exercised dominion and control over the substance, had knowledge of its presence and had knowledge of its narcotic character.” The court also explained the meaning of constructive possession. The only exception taken to the charge was that the court confused the word “control” with “possession.” There is no merit to this claim. The court correctly charged the jury. State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322, 335, 363 A.2d 72; State v. Avila, 166 Conn. 569, 573, 353 A.2d 776; State v. Harris, 159 Conn. 521, 531, 271 A.2d 74, cert. dismissed, 400 U.S. 1019, 91 S. Ct. 578, 27 L. Ed. 2d 630. Furthermore, viewing the charge as a whole it had no tendency to mislead the jury. State v. Tropiano, 158 Conn. 412, 433, 262 A.2d 147, cert. denied, 398 U.S. 949, 90 S. Ct. 1866, 26 L. Ed. 2d 288.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

374 A.2d 1050, 172 Conn. 414, 1977 Conn. LEXIS 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-corvo-conn-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack