Summary
The Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed the defendant's convictions for attempt to commit murder and related offenses. The central issue was whether the trial court violated the defendant's right to jury unanimity by discharging the jury after receiving an ex parte comment from a juror expressing guilt about the verdict, but before disclosing it to counsel. The court held that the comment did not indicate a lack of unanimity or juror misconduct, and the trial court's limited post-verdict inquiry complied with constitutional standards, resulting in an affirmation of the judgment.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court violated the defendant's right to jury unanimity by discharging the jury before disclosing a juror's postverdict comment that she felt "a little guilty about the attempted murder charge."
- Whether the trial court violated the defendant's right to a fair trial or abused its discretion by conducting a limited posttrial inquiry and refusing to question the juror about why she made the comment.
Holdings
- The claim failed under the third prong of State v. Golding because the defendant did not establish an actual constitutional violation. The juror's statement that she felt "a little guilty" did not reasonably indicate that she or another juror had failed to agree to the verdict, and the posttrial hearing adequately confirmed that she had assented to the guilty verdict.
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion by asking the juror whether she had agreed with the verdict and declining to ask why she made the comment. The limited inquiry satisfied the preliminary inquiry required for allegations of juror misconduct, and further questioning would have improperly invaded the jury's deliberative processes.
Key quotations
“Because we cannot infer that C.A. intended her comment to inform the judge that the verdict was not unanimous, the judge’s failure to disclose C.A.’s comment to the parties before discharging the jury does not amount to a constitutional violation.” (235 Conn. App. 645-46)
“The court’s actions clearly satisfied the preliminary inquiry required by Brown.” (235 Conn. App. 647)
Factual background
The defendant and the victim were in a romantic relationship. After a heated argument on September 24, 2016, the defendant approached the victim from behind and stabbed her three times in the back; he then admitted to neighbors and police that he had stabbed her. The jury found him guilty of attempt to commit murder, assault in the first degree, and criminal violation of a protective order. After the verdict was accepted, a juror told the judge that she felt "a little guilty about the attempted murder charge," but later affirmed that she had agreed with the guilty verdict.
Procedural history
The defendant was tried before a jury in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Windham, geographical area number eleven. The jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to a total effective term of thirty years of incarceration. The defendant appealed, challenging only the attempted-murder conviction; the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed.