to carry firearm because he had been involved in shooting earlier that day); State v. Sanchez , 75 Conn. App. 223, 237–42, 815 A.2d 242 (evidence was sufficient to support inference that defendant driver had constructive possession of drugs because defendant was seen smoking marijuana filled cigar, officers smelled marijuana, defendant fled police while discarding cigar, and narcotics were found in plain view in open ashtray), cert. denied, 263 Conn. 914, 821 A.2d 769 (2003) ; State v. Grant , 51 Conn. App. 824, 829, 725 A.2d 367 (evidence was sufficient to support inference of constructive possession because "[t]wo experienced detectives familiar with the defendant identified him as the driver of the car and observed him receive money from a female and give her an item from a paper bag in a high drug traffic area," defendant "fled in his car when [a police officer] ordered him to shut off his engine," and defendant was observed "throw[ing] the paper bag from his car"), cert. denied, 248 Conn. 916, 734 A.2d 568 (1999). But cf. State v. Cruz , 28 Conn. App. 575, 580–81, 611 A.2d 457 (1992) (reversing defendant driver's conviction for possession of marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia because defendant did not own vehicle in which marijuana seed and rolling papers were found, defendant's statement about past marijuana use was "minimally probative of the issue of dominion and control of the seed," and "[t]he evidence ... equally supported a conclusion that the defendant was unaware of the presence of either the seed or the rolling papers and did not exercise dominion and control over them").