Summary
This Connecticut Supreme Court decision addresses whether a trial court abused its discretion by denying a defendant's motion for a mistrial after a juror expressed equivocation during a jury poll. The court held that the trial judge's decision to pause polling, consult counsel, and direct the jury to resume deliberations did not constitute impermissible coercion. Relying on the final unanimous verdict and the absence of coercive conduct or misconduct, the appellate court affirmed the murder conviction.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial after stopping the jury poll and directing the jury to resume deliberations.
- Whether the trial court’s response to the juror’s equivocation resulted in an impermissibly coerced verdict or required a Chip Smith charge.
- Whether the trial court violated Practice Book § 42-31 by discontinuing the jury poll after the juror expressed equivocation or disagreement.
Holdings
- The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a mistrial because the circumstances did not demonstrate impermissible coercion of the dissenting juror or prejudice requiring a mistrial.
- The verdict was not impermissibly coerced, and the trial court was not required to give a Chip Smith charge before directing the jury to resume deliberations.
- The court declined to review the claim because it was unpreserved and nonconstitutional; the right to a jury poll under the rule of practice is not itself constitutional.
Key quotations
“What is impermissible is a situation [in which] the outcome is the result of coercion, i.e., [when] as a consequence of developments during jury deliberation or trial court action or inaction, one or more jurors feel forced to change their votes from what they individually in fact believe, and thus the verdict is not freely and fairly given.” (488-489)
“On the basis of the circumstances before it, and after soliciting input from counsel, the trial court opted for a minimal and neutral course of action in order to allow the deliberation process to continue.” (494)
“We conclude, therefore, that, when the trial court instructed the jurors to continue the deliberation process, it did not preclude the possibility that disagreement might occur.” (497)
Factual background
After an argument concerning illegal narcotics sales, John Bolton shot and killed Carl Spence in Hartford on January 8, 2019. Bolton was tried for murder and criminal possession of a firearm. After approximately four and one-half hours of deliberation, the jury announced guilty verdicts, but during an individual poll the sixth juror, S.C., expressed both discomfort with stating the verdict publicly and disagreement with the verdict itself. The trial court stopped the poll, consulted counsel, allowed a lunch break, directed the jury to resume deliberations using its existing instructions, and later accepted a second unanimous guilty verdict after approximately two additional hours of deliberation.
Procedural history
The defendant was charged in the Superior Court for the judicial district of Hartford and tried to a jury before Gustafson, J. After the jury initially announced guilty verdicts, a poll revealed equivocation by one juror. The trial court stopped the poll, allowed further deliberations, denied the defendant’s motions for a mistrial, and accepted a second unanimous guilty verdict. Judgment was rendered imposing a total effective sentence of thirty years, and the defendant appealed. The Supreme Court of Connecticut affirmed.