State v. Walton
1993 Conn. LEXIS 255, 630 A.2d 990, 227 Conn. 32 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conspirator may be held criminally liable for a substantive offense committed by a coconspirator if the offense was committed within the scope of the conspiracy, in furtherance of its objectives, and was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiratorial agreement.
Facts:
- From September 1988 through January 1989, Hartford police conducted approximately fifteen undercover surveillances of a house at 284-86 Enfield Street.
- During these surveillances, officers repeatedly observed Scott Walton, Robert Walton, and Aubrey Johnson selling small packets of drugs to customers in cars and on foot.
- Scott Walton, who lived in the building, was frequently seen on the porch overseeing the drug sales of the others and regularly entering and exiting the house.
- On January 21, 1989, police executed a search warrant on the house.
- Upon entering a first-floor apartment, police observed the three defendants and others sitting around a coffee table.
- On the coffee table was a shopping bag containing approximately $2000 cash and 43 bags of cocaine that were in the process of being packaged for street sale.
- An officer saw Scott Walton place an item, later identified as a loaded .45 caliber pistol, under the sofa cushion on which he was sitting.
- A search of a locked bedroom in the apartment uncovered nearly one kilogram of cocaine, several guns, and $5000 in cash.
Procedural Posture:
- Scott Walton, Robert Walton, and Aubrey Johnson were charged with various narcotics offenses in a Connecticut trial court.
- Following a joint jury trial, Scott Walton was convicted of one count of possession of narcotics with intent to sell and one count of conspiracy to distribute narcotics.
- Robert Walton and Aubrey Johnson were convicted of one count each of conspiracy to distribute narcotics.
- All three defendants appealed their convictions to the Appellate Court of Connecticut.
- The Connecticut Supreme Court transferred the appeals from the Appellate Court to itself for decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Connecticut law permit a defendant to be convicted of a substantive criminal offense based on the vicarious liability principle that a conspirator is responsible for crimes committed by a coconspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Borden, J.
Yes, a conspirator may be held liable for a substantive offense committed by a coconspirator. This case adopts the vicarious liability principle from Pinkerton v. United States, which holds that a member of a conspiracy is responsible for criminal offenses committed by coconspirators that are within the scope of the conspiracy, in furtherance of it, and are reasonably foreseeable as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. The court found that Connecticut General Statutes § 53a-4, a savings clause in the penal code, permits courts to recognize principles of criminal liability not explicitly codified, so long as they are not inconsistent with existing provisions. The court explicitly limited its holding to the circumstances of this case, where: (1) the defendant, Scott Walton, was a leader directing the criminal operation; (2) the substantive offense (possession with intent to sell) was a principal object of the conspiracy; and (3) the substantive offense was proven by one of the overt acts alleged in the conspiracy charge. This holding does not create a double jeopardy issue because the crime of conspiracy requires proof of an agreement, an element not required for the substantive possession charge.
Dissenting - Berdon, J.
No, the court should not adopt the Pinkerton doctrine of vicarious liability. By doing so, the majority creates a new form of accomplice liability that was not intended by the legislature when it enacted separate statutes for conspiracy and accomplice liability. The savings clause in the penal code does not give the court authority to create new substantive offenses, which this ruling effectively does by expanding liability beyond the legislative design. This doctrine offends the fundamental principle of individual guilt and causation in criminal law. Furthermore, even if the majority's limiting factors were valid, the trial court's instructions to the jury were not so limited, making the application of the doctrine in this case improper.
Analysis:
This case formally adopts the federal Pinkerton doctrine of vicarious coconspirator liability into Connecticut's state criminal law. The decision significantly expands the scope of criminal liability for individuals engaged in conspiracies by making them responsible for the foreseeable criminal acts of their partners, even if they did not personally participate in or know about those specific acts. The court's attempt to cabin the doctrine's application to leaders of a conspiracy whose principal object was the substantive crime may limit its initial impact, but it creates a precedent that could be broadened in future cases. This ruling provides prosecutors with a powerful tool, particularly in organized crime and complex drug trafficking cases, to convict higher-level organizers for the street-level crimes committed by their subordinates.
