school violation in Connecticut

2021Under what was then the authority of State v. Chicano, 216 Conn. 699, 725 , 584 A.2d 425 (1990) (overruled by State v. Polanco, 308 Conn. 242 , 61 A.3d 1084 (2013)), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1254 , 111 S. Ct. 2898 , 115 L.

2012Id., at 745, 967 A.2d 618 .

2011The defendant does not appeal his conviction on the charge of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a, and, therefore, we do not address that conviction here. 2 The defendant also claims that his rights were violated under article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut, but fails to provide the analysis required by State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684-86 , 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).

2011The defendant does not appeal his conviction on the charge of interfering with an officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-167a, and, therefore, we do not address that conviction here. 2 The defendant also claims that his rights were violated under article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut, but fails to provide the analysis required by State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672, 684-86 , 610 A.2d 1225 (1992).

2011Evidence was presented to a jury, which, on September 22,2004, found the petitioner guilty of “possession of narcotics with *536 the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) and possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d).” State v. Thomas, 96 Conn. App. 578, 579 , 901 A.2d 76 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 912 , 90

2011Evidence was presented to a jury, which, on September 22,2004, found the petitioner guilty of “possession of narcotics with *536 the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) and possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d).” State v. Thomas, 96 Conn. App. 578, 579 , 901 A.2d 76 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 912 , 90

2011Evidence was presented to a jury, which, on September 22,2004, found the petitioner guilty of “possession of narcotics with *536 the intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (b), possession of a controlled substance with the intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (a) and possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d).” State v. Thomas, 96 Conn. App. 578, 579 , 901 A.2d 76 , cert. denied, 280 Conn. 912 , 90

2010State v. Clark, 107 Conn. App. 819, 821 , 947 A.2d 351 (2008).

2010State v. Clark, 107 Conn. App. 819, 821 , 947 A.2d 351 (2008).

2009In State v. Charles, 56 Conn. App. 722 , 745 A.2d 842 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 954 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000), we affirmed the petitioner’s conviction of conspiracy to sell narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 21a-278a (b), sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b) and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172.

2009In State v. Charles, 56 Conn. App. 722 , 745 A.2d 842 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 954 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000), we affirmed the petitioner’s conviction of conspiracy to sell narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 21a-278a (b), sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b) and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172.

2009In State v. Charles, 56 Conn. App. 722 , 745 A.2d 842 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 954 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000), we affirmed the petitioner’s conviction of conspiracy to sell narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 21a-278a (b), sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b) and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172.

2009In State v. Charles, 56 Conn. App. 722 , 745 A.2d 842 , cert. denied, 252 Conn. 954 , 749 A.2d 1203 (2000), we affirmed the petitioner’s conviction of conspiracy to sell narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 (a) and 21a-278a (b), sale of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b), possession of narcotics with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-278a (b) and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-172.

2009The defendant appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, 2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his judgment of conviction “of (1) possession of narcotics, namely, one-half gram or more of cocaine in a freebase form, with intent to sell or dispense by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 21a-278 (a), (2) possession of narcotics, namely, cocaine in a freebase form, with intent to sell or dispense within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), (3) possession of a hallucinogenic substance,

2009The defendant appeals, upon our grant of his petition for certification, 2 from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming his judgment of conviction “of (1) possession of narcotics, namely, one-half gram or more of cocaine in a freebase form, with intent to sell or dispense by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 21a-278 (a), (2) possession of narcotics, namely, cocaine in a freebase form, with intent to sell or dispense within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b), (3) possession of a hallucinogenic substance,

2008The defendant, Kevin Robinson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of (1) possession of narcotics, namely, one-half gram or more of cocaine in a freebase *719 form, with intent to sell or dispense by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 21a-278 (a), [1] (2) possession of narcotics, namely, cocaine in a freebase form, with intent to sell or dispense within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a(b), [2] (3) possession of a hallucinogenic substance, namely, phencyclidine, in violat

2008The defendant, Kevin Robinson, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a trial to the court, of (1) possession of narcotics, namely, one-half gram or more of cocaine in a freebase *719 form, with intent to sell or dispense by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2003) § 21a-278 (a), [1] (2) possession of narcotics, namely, cocaine in a freebase form, with intent to sell or dispense within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a(b), [2] (3) possession of a hallucinogenic substance, namely, phencyclidine, in violat

2006As our Supreme Court stated in State v. Baldwin, 224 Conn. 347, 355 , 618 A.2d 513 (1993), “evidence that the defendant had been a seller of narcotics in the past is relevant to the nature of his possession of the drug at the time of the alleged offense.

2006As our Supreme Court stated in State v. Baldwin, 224 Conn. 347, 355 , 618 A.2d 513 (1993), “evidence that the defendant had been a seller of narcotics in the past is relevant to the nature of his possession of the drug at the time of the alleged offense.

2006Because intent is almost always proved, if at all, by circumstantial evidence, prior misconduct evidence, where available, is often relied upon.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) With respect to counts three and four, possession of narcotics in violation of § 2 la-279 (a) and possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-279 (d), “[t]o prove either actual or constructive possession of a narcotic substance, the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the character of the drug and its presence, and exercised dominion and control ove

2006Because intent is almost always proved, if at all, by circumstantial evidence, prior misconduct evidence, where available, is often relied upon.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) With respect to counts three and four, possession of narcotics in violation of § 2 la-279 (a) and possession of narcotics within 1500 feet of a school in violation of § 21a-279 (d), “[t]o prove either actual or constructive possession of a narcotic substance, the state must establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused knew of the character of the drug and its presence, and exercised dominion and control ove

2005This court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Lucas, 63 Conn. App. 263 , 775 A.2d 338 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930 , 776 A.2d 1148 (2001).

2005This court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Lucas, 63 Conn. App. 263 , 775 A.2d 338 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930 , 776 A.2d 1148 (2001).

2005This court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Lucas, 63 Conn. App. 263 , 775 A.2d 338 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930 , 776 A.2d 1148 (2001).

2005This court affirmed the judgment of conviction in State v. Lucas, 63 Conn. App. 263 , 775 A.2d 338 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 930 , 776 A.2d 1148 (2001).

2003The defendant, Vincent Betances, appeals 1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of a narcotic substance, heroin, with intent to sell in violation of General Stat utes § 2 la-277 (a) 2 and possession of a narcotic substance, heroin, within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d). 3 The defendant claims that the trial court: (1) improperly denied his motion to suppress eight bags of heroin found on his person in violation of his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. C

2003The defendant, Vincent Betances, appeals 1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of a narcotic substance, heroin, with intent to sell in violation of General Stat utes § 2 la-277 (a) 2 and possession of a narcotic substance, heroin, within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-279 (d). 3 The defendant claims that the trial court: (1) improperly denied his motion to suppress eight bags of heroin found on his person in violation of his fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. C

2002In this case, which is the companion to State v. Diaz, 69 Conn. App. 187 , 793 A.2d 1204 (2002), Tadeo Polanco, one of two codefendants, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a), 1 possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b) 2 and interfering with a search in violation of General Statutes § 54-33d. 3 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of th

2002In this case, which is the companion to State v. Diaz, 69 Conn. App. 187 , 793 A.2d 1204 (2002), Tadeo Polanco, one of two codefendants, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a), 1 possession of cocaine with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278a (b) 2 and interfering with a search in violation of General Statutes § 54-33d. 3 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction of th

2002In this case, which is the companion to State v. Polanco, 69 Conn. App. 169 , 797 A.2d 523 (2002), Herman Diaz, one of two codefendants, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a) 1 and possession of cocaine 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 (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and, therefore, the court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acq

2002In this case, which is the companion to State v. Polanco, 69 Conn. App. 169 , 797 A.2d 523 (2002), Herman Diaz, one of two codefendants, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of cocaine with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes § 21a-278 (a) 1 and possession of cocaine 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 (1) the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction and, therefore, the court improperly denied his motion for a judgment of acq

2001State v. Anderson, 55 Conn. App. 60 , 738 A.2d 1116 (1999).

2001State v. Anderson, 55 Conn. App. 60 , 738 A.2d 1116 (1999).

1995The defendant conceded that he had not raised the issue before the trial court, 3 but sought to prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), 4 claiming that his federal and state due process rights had been violated because the specific intent under § 21a-278a (b) was an element of the crime.

1995The defendant conceded that he had not raised the issue before the trial court, 3 but sought to prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), 4 claiming that his federal and state due process rights had been violated because the specific intent under § 21a-278a (b) was an element of the crime.

1927In Brunswick School v. Greenwich, 88 Conn. 241 , 90 Atl. 801 , we considered the provision of the statute exempting academies from taxation as applied to a school which was conducted for purposes of profit and the course in which covered twelve years, from the *459 most primary instruction to entrance into college, and we there said (p. 246) that “to bring a building, or a part of a building, within the so-called exemption of the statute as an academy, it must be shown that (if not owned by the municipality) it is exclusively occupied for the maintenance of a school where instruction is given

1927In Brunswick School v. Greenwich, 88 Conn. 241 , 90 Atl. 801 , we considered the provision of the statute exempting academies from taxation as applied to a school which was conducted for purposes of profit and the course in which covered twelve years, from the *459 most primary instruction to entrance into college, and we there said (p. 246) that “to bring a building, or a part of a building, within the so-called exemption of the statute as an academy, it must be shown that (if not owned by the municipality) it is exclusively occupied for the maintenance of a school where instruction is given