Summary
This document is a concurrence in State v. Carrion by Justice Zarella, joined by Justices Espinosa and Vertefeuille, of the Connecticut Supreme Court. The concurrence argues that the court should apply consistent limiting principles whenever exercising its supervisory authority and should do so only when traditional protections are inadequate and the issue affects the perceived fairness of the judicial system as a whole. It concludes that the challenged jury instruction concerning the state’s interest in acquitting innocent persons did not warrant a prophylactic rule prohibiting its use.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should invoke its supervisory authority to direct trial courts not to give the challenged jury instruction.
- Whether traditional constitutional, statutory, and procedural protections were inadequate to ensure the fair and just administration of the courts.
- Whether the challenged instruction implicated the perceived fairness and integrity of the judicial system as a whole.
- Whether the challenged instruction violated the defendant's evidentiary or constitutional rights.
Holdings
- The concurrence would decline to invoke supervisory authority because the limiting principles governing that extraordinary remedy were not satisfied.
- The concurrence would require the same two-part limiting analysis in every case: whether traditional protections are adequate and whether the issue affects the perceived fairness of the judicial system as a whole.
- The concurrence agreed with the majority that the defendant's constitutional claims failed.
Key quotations
“Our supervisory powers are not a last bastion of hope for every untenable appeal.” (at 824)
“In my view, the invocation of supervisory authority in all categories of cases should be governed by the same limiting principles.” (at 825)
“Accordingly, because it has not been shown that traditional protections are inadequate or that the perceived fairness of the system as a whole has been called into question, I would decline to invoke our supervisory authority in the present case.” (at 827)
Factual background
The challenged jury instruction stated that the state does not want an innocent person convicted and is as concerned with having an innocent person acquitted as with having a guilty person convicted. The concurrence regarded the language as factually correct and as supporting, rather than undermining, the presumption of innocence. The opinion also relied on the fact that the charge as a whole included other instructions concerning the presumption of innocence and the state's burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Procedural history
The defendant challenged jury-instruction language stating that the state does not want an innocent person convicted and is as concerned with acquitting an innocent person as convicting a guilty person. The concurrence states that the majority rejected the defendant's evidentiary and constitutional claims but invoked supervisory authority to direct courts not to give the challenged instruction. Justice Zarella, joined by Justices Espinosa and Vertefeuille, concurred in the rejection of the evidentiary and constitutional claims but disagreed with invoking supervisory authority.