Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278

Current with legislation from the 2023 Regular and Special Sessions.

Section 21a-278 - (Formerly Sec. 19-480a). Penalty for illegal manufacture, distribution, sale, prescription or administration by non-drug-dependent person

(a)

(1) No person may manufacture, distribute, sell, prescribe, dispense, compound, transport with the intent to sell or dispense, possess with the intent to sell or dispense, offer, give or administer to another person, except as authorized in this chapter, (A) one or more preparations, compounds, mixtures or substances containing an aggregate weight of (i) one ounce or more of heroin or methadone, or (ii) one-half ounce or more of cocaine or cocaine in a free-base form, or (B) a substance containing five milligrams or more of lysergic acid diethylamide. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to a person who is, at the time of the commission of the offense, a drug-dependent person.

(2) Any person who violates subdivision (1) of this subsection shall be imprisoned not less than five years or more than life. The execution of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the provisions of this subdivision shall not be suspended, except that the court may suspend the execution of such mandatory minimum sentence if, at the time of the commission of the offense, such person was under the age of eighteen years or such person's mental capacity was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.

(b)

(1) No person may manufacture, distribute, sell, prescribe, dispense, compound, transport with the intent to sell or dispense, possess with the intent to sell or dispense, offer, give or administer to another person, except as authorized in this chapter or chapter 420f, (A) a narcotic substance, (B) a hallucinogenic substance, (C) an amphetamine-type substance, or (D) one kilogram or more of a cannabis-type substance. The provisions of this subdivision shall not apply to a person who is, at the time of the commission of the offense, a drug-dependent person.

(2) Any person who violates subdivision (1) of this subsection (A) for a first offense, shall be imprisoned not less than five years or more than twenty years, and (B) for any subsequent offense, shall be imprisoned not less than ten years or more than twenty-five years. The execution of the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by the provisions of this subdivision shall not be suspended, except that the court may suspend the execution of such mandatory minimum sentence if, at the time of the commission of the offense, such person was under the age of eighteen years or such person's mental capacity was significantly impaired, but not so impaired as to constitute a defense to prosecution.

Conn. Gen. Stat. § 21a-278

(1971, P.A. 812, S. 1; 1972, P.A. 278, S. 25; P.A. 73-137, S. 10; P.A. 74-332, S. 1, 6; P.A. 87-373, S. 2; P.A. 01-195, S. 92, 181; P.A. 05-248, S. 8; P.A. 06-196, S. 254; P.A. 07-217, S. 97; P.A. 17-17, S. 2.)

Amended by P.A. 17-0017, S. 2 of the Connecticut Acts of the 2017 Regular Session, eff. 10/1/2017.

Annotations to former section 19-480a: Cited. 166 Conn. 439; Id., 620. Statute on its face does not violate the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. 167 C. 328. Cited. 172 Conn. 16; 186 C. 26; 197 Conn. 67; 199 C. 359; 201 C. 605. Subsec. (a): Order directing defendant to submit to drug dependency examination is interlocutory and not appealable until conviction and final judgment. 180 C. 290. Cited. 194 C. 612; 200 C. 412. Subsec. (b): Cited. 179 C. 239; Id., 522. Question of burden of drug dependency is one of first impression; held that proof of drug dependency constitutes an exemption under Sec. 19-474 (21a-269) and that burden of producing some substantial evidence of drug dependency rests initially on defendant. 182 Conn. 142. Cited. 187 C. 469; 188 Conn. 183. Annotations to present section: Cited. 191 C. 360; 192 Conn. 383; 194 C. 589; 204 C. 377; 211 Conn. 258; 212 Conn. 195; 221 Conn. 595; 224 C. 322; 227 Conn. 32; 231 C. 514; Id., 941; 235 Conn. 477; Id., 487. Cited. 9 CA 686; 13 CA 69; 19 Conn.App. 195; 26 Conn.App. 779; 27 CA 713; 32 Conn.App. 724; 35 CA 609; 36 CA 488; Id., 631; 41 Conn.App. 604; 42 Conn.App. 640. Defendant could not be convicted on one set of facts of both possession of narcotics by a person who is not drug-dependent and simple possession of narcotics and court ordered one sentence vacated. 60 CA 436. Subsec. (a): Cited. 200 Conn. 412. Institution of definite sentencing scheme for any felony under Sec. 53a-35a implicitly repealed indeterminate sentencing aspect of this section. 214 C. 378. Cited. 237 Conn. 81; 239 Conn. 427. Cited. 10 CA 561; 11 Conn.App. 47; 15 CA 161; 16 CA 518; 18 CA 104; 30 CA 783; 45 Conn.App. 110. Design and effect of statute discussed; conviction for both possession and sale of narcotics does not violate prohibition against double jeopardy. 53 Conn.App. 661. Conviction of both possession of at least one-half gram of crack cocaine with intent to sell under this section and possession of powder cocaine with intent to sell under Sec. 21a-277 does not constitute double jeopardy; evidence was sufficient to support conviction of possession with intent to sell. 75 Conn.App. 223. Sentence of 35 years of incarceration does not exceed authorized sentencing limit. 127 CA 706. Subsec. (b): Cited. 205 Conn. 560; 214 Conn. 692; 215 C. 667; 216 C. 150, see also 223 C. 902 and 225 C. 10; 217 C. 811; 218 C. 458; 219 C. 529; Id., 752; 220 Conn. 6; Id., 628; 221 C. 518. Defendant bears burden of proving by preponderance of evidence that she was drug-dependent. Id., 595. Cited. Id., 925; 223 C. 283; Id., 461; Id., 703; 224 Conn. 253; 225 Conn. 650; 226 Conn. 514; 229 C. 60; 236 C. 176; 238 Conn. 380; 239 C. 629; 241 C. 322; Id., 650. Holdings in 182 Conn. 142 and 221 Conn. 595 that Subsec. creates exception for drug-dependent persons within meaning of Sec. 21a-269 and that the absence of drug dependency is not an element of the offense upheld; holding in 221 Conn. 595 that defendant must prove exception of drug dependency by a preponderance of the evidence upheld; requirement that defendant prove drug dependency by a preponderance of the evidence is not unconstitutional. 290 Conn. 24; judgment superseded, see Id., 602. Jury could reasonably conclude that defendant, who was not in exclusive possession of a vehicle containing narcotics, knew about and had control over narcotics found in the vehicle's center console from evidence that defendant closed the center console as police approached the vehicle and that a plastic bag, later determined to contain cocaine, was observed protruding from the corner of the console, and evidence that defendant was a narcotics dealer further supported the inference that defendant possessed the narcotics. 296 C. 62. Defendant's conviction of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell under Sec. 21a-277(a) must be vacated as a lesser included offense re his conviction of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of Subsec.; merger of convictions approach in 216 Conn. 699 overruled. 308 Conn. 242. The language and legislative history of P.A. 17-17 demonstrate that the legislature did not intend to effect any substantive changes to the law which makes drug dependency an affirmative defense. 329 C. 770. Cited. 7 CA 588; 8 Conn.App. 469; 10 Conn.App. 347; 11 CA 140; 13 CA 40; 14 CA 146; Id., 807; 15 CA 519, see also 27 CA 291, 223 Conn. 902 and 225 Conn. 10; 16 CA 18; 17 CA 104; Id., 114; Id., 556; Id., 635; 18 CA 175; Id., 184; Id., 716; 19 CA 265; Id., 277; Id., 478; judgment reversed, see 216 Conn. 150, see also 27 Conn.App. 291, 223 Conn. 902 and 225 Conn. 10; Id., 626; Id., 640; Id., 668; 20 CA 168; judgment reversed, see 215 Conn. 667; Id., 183; Id., 290; Id., 386; Id., 824; 21 CA 235; Id., 474; Id., 506; Id., 519; 22 CA 1; Id., 62; judgment reversed, see 219 Conn. 529; Id., 303; Id., 567; Id., 665; 23 CA 358; Id., 392; Id., 426; Id., 543; Id., 559; Id., 571; Id., 592; Id., 667; Id., 746; judgment reversed, see 221 Conn. 595; 24 CA 158; Id., 347; Id., 642; Id., 670; Id., 678; 25 Conn.App. 3; Id., 318; Id., 575; 26 CA 86; Id., 94; Id., 259; Id., 423, see also 27 Conn.App. 291, 223 Conn. 902 and 225 Conn. 10; Id., 472; Id., 667; 27 C. 171; Id., 307; Id., 558; Id., 596; 28 CA 126; Id., 575; 29 CA 304; Id., 359; Id., 584; Id., 675; Id., 694; 30 Conn.App. 9; Id., 470; Id., 654; Id., 712; Id., 783; 31 Conn.App. 548; 32 CA 84; Id., 505; Id., 811; Id., 831; Id., 842; 33 Conn.App. 253; Id., 409; Id., 509; Id., 647; 34 CA 141; Id., 191; Id., 492; Id., 501; Id., 629; 35 Conn.App. 360; 36 CA 672; 37 CA 355; Id., 360; Id., 456; judgment reversed, see 236 Conn. 176; Id., 491; 38 Conn.App. 29; Id., 536; 39 CA 526; Id., 550; 41 CA 47; Id., 772; 42 CA 1; Id., 264; Id., 500; Id., 537; judgment reversed, see 241 C. 650; Id., 687; Id., 751; 43 Conn.App. 339; 45 Conn.App. 207; Id., 679. Court declines to distinguish prior case on due process challenge to unitary adjudication of sale of narcotics and drug dependency. 47 CA 86. Cited re admission of, and sufficiency of, evidence re conviction. 51 CA 824. Defendant's claim of drug dependency discussed and rejected. 62 CA 102. Trial court improperly failed to provide definition of "drug dependency" in accordance with the term's statutory definition or otherwise in its instructions to jury. 69 CA 505. Circumstantial evidence at trial provided adequate evidentiary basis for jury to find that substance at issue was LSD, which evidence included court's definition and description of LSD, defendant's statement re substance and manner of ingestion and effect of substance on person who ingested it. 85 CA 575. Defendant failed to demonstrate that his two convictions under section, resulting from searches on the same day, constituted double jeopardy because defendant was found with one stash of cocaine in his pocket, and a later search of his home found another stash of different purity, reflecting different purposes related to the cocaine; defendant did not demonstrate a due process violation regarding jury instruction on nonexclusive possession of premises where narcotics were found. 93 CA 548. Circumstantial evidence that defendant picked up package and was engaged in illicit activity was insufficient to support conviction of possession of marijuana and possession with the intent to sell marijuana when essential element of offense, knowledge of the character of the illegal substance, was lacking. 98 CA 458. Evidence sufficient to show defendant possessed requisite knowledge for conviction under statute. 110 CA 245. Defendant's conviction of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell in violation of Sec. 21a-277(a) must be merged with his conviction of possession of a narcotic substance with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of Subsec., and his sentence for possession of narcotics with intent to sell must be vacated. 126 Conn.App. 323; judgment reversed in part re merger of convictions, see 308 Conn. 242. Proof that defendant knew package contained marijuana, and not a different substance, was an essential element of both the conspiracy count and accessory count; where defendant is charged as an accessory, state must prove defendant possessed 1 kilogram or more of marijuana, but need not prove that defendant knew he possessed 1 kilogram or more of marijuana. 151 CA 154.

See Sec. 21a-283a re authority of court to depart from prescribed mandatory minimum sentence.