State v. Jose A. B.

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed Jose A. B.’s convictions for sexual assault, attempted sexual assault, and two counts of risk of injury to a child. The court held that the trial court did not clearly err in rejecting the defendant’s Batson challenges to the prosecutor’s peremptory strikes of two prospective jurors, declining to adopt broader protection under the Connecticut Constitution at that time. The court also rejected the defendant’s double-jeopardy claim, concluding that the charged offenses were not the same offense under Blockburger.

Holdings

1. The court declined to hold on the record presented that a prospective juror's negative perception or distrust of law enforcement or the criminal justice system is an impermissible race-based reason for a peremptory challenge under the Connecticut constitution. The court retained the existing federal Batson framework and declined to adopt broader state constitutional protection while the Jury Selection Task Force and rule-making process were ongoing.
2. The trial court did not clearly err in finding that the prosecutor's reasons were race neutral and not pretexts for purposeful discrimination. The defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the jury-selection process was tainted by purposeful discrimination.
3. The defendant's convictions for two counts of risk of injury to a child did not violate double jeopardy because risk of injury to a child and first- or fourth-degree sexual assault are not the same offense under Blockburger and are not greater- and lesser-included offenses of one another.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the prosecutor's stated reasons for exercising peremptory challenges against two minority prospective jurors— including their distrust or negative experiences with law enforcement or the criminal justice system—were facially discriminatory under the Connecticut constitution.
2. Whether the prosecutor's stated reasons for striking the two prospective jurors were pretexts for purposeful racial discrimination under the third step of the Batson inquiry.
3. Whether convictions for risk of injury to a child and first- or fourth-degree sexual assault constituted multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the federal and Connecticut constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy.

Disposition

affirmed