Opinion
(6093)
Argued March 1, 1988
Decision released March 30, 1988
Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of violating the state dependency producing drug law and conspiracy to violate the state dependency producing drug law, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield and tried to the jury before Ford, J.; verdict and judgment of guilty from which the defendant appealed to this court. No error.
David M. Abbamonte, for the appellant (defendant).
Richard F. Jacobson, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, assistant state's attorney, and Donald A. Browne, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant appeals from the judgment of conviction, after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes 21a-278 (b), and conspiracy in violation of General Statutes 53a-48. The defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding that his oral statements to the police were given voluntarily, in light of a comment by a police officer to the defendant that "cooperation would probably help and wouldn't hurt him." Our review of the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the defendant's statements were given voluntarily and were not induced by a promise of leniency by the police. State v. Householder, 7 Conn. App. 1, 9-10, 507 A.2d 1012 (1986).