Conn. Gen. Stat. » Title 21a — CONSUMER PROTECTION · Chapter 420b — Dependency-Producing Drugs
Connecticut General Statutes

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-269 (2026)

(Formerly Sec. 19-474). Burden of proof of exception, excuse, proviso or exemption

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CT-CGAcga.ct.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
In any complaint, information or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this part, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in said section, and the burden of proof of any such exception, excuse, proviso or exemption shall be upon the defendant.

(1967, P.A. 555, S. 30.)

History: Sec. 19-474 transferred to Sec. 21a-269 in 1983.

Annotations to former section 19-474:

Defendant held to have burden of proving that tablets found in his possession, which he had obtained by prescription, were in container in which he received them. 148 C. 57. Cited. 163 C. 62. Where defendant offered no evidence of a license to sell narcotics but requested a charge to jury, no charge need have been given, but charge stating exemption and its inapplicability was a correct statement of law and in no way prejudicial. 164 C. 224. Determination of defendant's status as a person who is not drug-dependent under Sec. 19-480a(b) (21a-278(b)) is an exemption under this statute and examination of language of both statutes leads to conclusion that burden of producing evidence of drug dependency initially rests on defendant. 182 C. 142.

Annotations to present section:

Cited. 197 C. 67; 221 C. 595.

Cited. 7 CA 403; 17 CA 257; 19 CA 668; 20 CA 386; 27 CA 596; Id., 713; 32 CA 724; Id., 842; 35 CA 360; Id., 609; 41 CA 604.

(Return to Chapter
Table of Contents)		 (Return to
List of Chapters)		 (Return to
List of Titles)

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 21 cases, 1985–2018 · leading case: State v. Evans, 189 A.3d 1184 (Conn. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State v. Evans, 189 A.3d 1184 (Conn. 2018). · cites it 11× “In Ray , the defendant contended, inter alia, that "(1) this court's previous cases construing § 21a-278 (b) and General Statutes § 21a-269 19 to require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he *1202 was drug-dependent were wrongly decided; [and] (2) if…”
State v. Hart, 605 A.2d 1366 (Conn. 1992). · cites it 20× “*608 General Statutes § 21a-269 states: “In any complaint, information or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this part, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in said…”
State v. Ray, 966 A.2d 148 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 8× “2 The defendant appeals 3 from his conviction under § 2 la-278 (b), claiming that: (1) this corut’s previous cases construing § 21a-278 (b) and General Statutes § 21a-269 4 to require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was drug-dependent were…”
State v. Ray, 961 A.2d 947 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 21× “[2] The defendant appeals [3] from his conviction under § 21a-278(b), claiming that: (1) this court's previous cases construing § 21a-278(b) and General Statutes § 21a-269 [4] to require the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he was drug-dependent were…”
State v. Jenkins, 679 A.2d 3 (Conn. App. Ct. 1996). · cites it 6× “Section 21a-269 provides: “In any complaint, information or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this part, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in said section, and the…”
State v. Gould, 961 A.2d 975 (Conn. 2009). · cites it 2× “4 General Statutes § 21a-269 provides: “In any complaint, information or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this part, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, proviso or exemption contained in said…”
State v. Marrero, 785 A.2d 1198 (Conn. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 3× “, 608-609; see also General Statutes § 21a-269. “A drug-dependent person, could, however, be convicted under [General Statutes] § 21a-277 (a), which does not consider drug dependency, but which also does not carry a mandatory minimum sentence.”
State v. Liebowitz, 509 A.2d 43 (Conn. App. Ct. 1986). · cites it 4× “General Statutes § 21a-269, formerly § 19-474, 7 provides, in pertinent part, that “[i]n any complaint, information or indictment .”
State v. Luca, 563 A.2d 752 (Conn. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 2× “General Statutes § 21a-269 places the initial burden of proving the existence of any exemption contained in General Statutes §§ 21a-240 through 2 la-285 upon the defendant.”
State v. Jackson, 630 A.2d 164 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993). · cites it 3× “General Statutes § 21a-269 provides: “In any complaint, information or indictment, and in any action or proceeding brought for the enforcement of any provision of this part, it shall not be necessary to negative any exception, excuse, provisto or exemption contained in said…”
State v. Thompson, 495 A.2d 1054 (Conn. 1985). “General Statutes 5 19-474 was transferred to § 21a-269 in 1983.”
State v. Denby, 35 Conn. App. 609 (Conn. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 2× ““[T]he language of § 21a-269, which places the ‘burden of proof’ on a defendant invoking the exemption specified by § 21a-278 (b), requires the defendant to *619 carry the burden of persuading the jury by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she is drug-dependent.”
Show all 21 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.