Opinion
(15198)
Officially released November 12, 1996
Appeal from the assessment of a marijuana and controlled substances tax against the plaintiff, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Hartford-New Britain, Tax Session at Hartford, where the court, Blue, J., granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and rendered judgment thereon, from which the defendant appealed to this court, which reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case to that court for further proceedings. On petition by the plaintiff to the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, that court vacated the judgment and remanded the case to this court for further consideration. Judgment ordering further proceedings affirmed.
Aaron S. Bayer, deputy attorney general, with whom, on the brief, were Richard Blumenthal, attorney general, and Gregory T. D'Auria and Anne O'Leary, assistant attorneys general, for the appellant (defendant).
Frank W. Louis, for the appellee (plaintiff).
Susan C. Marks, supervisory assistant state's attorney, filed a brief for the state division of criminal justice as amicus curiae.
This matter is before us on remand from the United States Supreme Court. We previously considered it in Covelli v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 235 Conn. 539, 668 A.2d 699 (1995). On the plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari, the United States Supreme Court vacated our previous judgment; Covelli v. Crystal, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2577, 135 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1996); and ordered us to reconsider it in light of United States v. Ursery, 518 U.S. 267, 116 S.Ct. 2135, 135 L.Ed.2d 549 (1996). Having reconsidered, we affirm our prior judgment.
With whom, BERDON, J., joins.
The United States Supreme Court, in Covelli v. Crystal, ___ U.S. ___, 116 S.Ct. 2577, 135 L.Ed.2d 1092 (1996), vacated the judgment of this court in Covelli v. Commissioner of Revenue Services, 235 Conn. 539, 668 A.2d 699 (1995), and remanded the case for our reconsideration. I disagree with the majority that our prior judgment should be affirmed, and I take this opportunity to restate my opinion that the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the United States constitution was violated when the plaintiff, following his judgment of conviction for possession of illicit drugs, was assessed a tax pursuant to Connecticut's Marijuana and Controlled Substances Tax Act, General Statutes §§ 12-650 through 12-660.