State v. Hill
In State v. Hill, 237 Conn. 81, 675 A.2d 866 (1996), the defendant was convicted of possession of more than one-half gram of crack cocaine with the intent sell in violation of 21a-278 (a) and possession of heroin with intent to sell in violation of 21a-277 (a). Id. at 83.
Both drugs were found at the same time, upon apprehending the defendant, and in the same bag. Id. at 84-85.
In Hill, our Supreme Court stated that "application of the Blockburger test to this case leads to the conclusion that the information alleges two separate and distinct offenses for double jeopardy purposes. The first count of the information charges the defendant with possessing more than one-half gram of cocaine in a freebase form with the intent to sell, while the second count alleges that the defendant possessed heroin with the intent to sell. Because each of the two charges requires proof of a fact that the other does not, it may be presumed that the legislature did not intend to prohibit multiple punishments for the conduct underlying the two charges.
"Because the Blockburger test creates only a rebuttable presumption of legislative intent, the test is not controlling when a contrary intent is manifest. . . . It is clear, however, that the pertinent statutory language, when viewed in the context of the purpose of our drug laws, fully supports the conclusion that the possession of one-half gram or more of crack cocaine with the intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent under 21a-278 (a) and possession of heroin with the intent to sell under 21a-277 (a) give rise to separate crimes carrying separate punishments." Id. at 100-101.
The Court went on to state, "absent such an expectation, the subsequent police action has no constitutional ramifications." State v. Hill, supra, 237 Conn. 92.
Additionally, in Hill, the Court reiterated the two-prong test for determining standing under article first, 7, of the Connecticut constitution.
"To meet this rule of standing . . . a two-part subjective/objective test must be satisfied: (1) whether the person contesting the search manifested a subjective expectation of privacy with respect to the invaded premises; and (2) whether that expectation is one that society would consider reasonable." State v. Hill, supra, 92.
The court also held that this is the same test as that under the United States constitution. State v. Hill, supra, 92 n.17.