State v. Anderson

• Decision Date: 13 March 2001
• Citation: State v. Anderson, 773 A.2d 287, 255 Conn. 425 (Conn. 2001)
• Parties: (Conn. 2001) STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. VASKA ANDERSON SC 16225
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court

773 A.2d 287 (Conn. 2001)

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v.VASKA ANDERSON

SC 16225

THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

Argued October 26, 2000

March 13, 2001

Nancy L. Chupak, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were James E. Thomas, state's attorney, and Victor Carlucci, Jr., assistant state's attorney, for the appellant(state).

Wesley S. Spears, for the appellee(defendant).

McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Norcott, Sullivan and Vertefeuille, Js.¹

Borden, J.

OPINION

The state appeals, following our grant of certification, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the defendant's conviction on drug possession and distribution charges.The state claims that the Appellate Court improperly concluded that: (1) certain juror misconduct occurring during the course of the trial required the exercise of the Appellate Court's supervisory authority so as to require a new trial; and (2) the jury misconduct in this case constituted a structural defect that required a new trial.We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court.

The defendant, Vaska Anderson, was charged with possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to sell by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 (b); conspiracy to distribute more than one kilogram of marijuana by a person who is not drug-dependent in violation of General Statutes §§§§ 53a-48 (a)and21a-278 (b); possession of more than one kilogram of marijuana with intent to sell within 1500 feet of a school in violation of General Statutes §§ 21a-278a (b); assault on a peace officer in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-167c (a)(1); and failure to appear in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-172 (a).During the state's case, the defendant moved for a mistrial, based upon improper statements allegedly made by one of the jurors to the other jurors.The trial court denied the motion.The jury found the defendant guilty of all charges, except assault on a peace officer and failure to appear, and the trial court rendered a judgment of conviction.The defendant appealed to the Appellate Court contending, inter alia, that the trial court improperly had denied his motion for a mistrial based on juror misconduct.²The Appellate Court reversed the defendant's conviction and ordered a new trial.State v. Anderson, 55 Conn. App. 60, 738 A.2d 1116(1999).This certified appeal followed.³

The underlying facts, as set forth by the Appellate Court, are as follows: "On August 14, 1993, a Connecticut state police detective received notice from the Drug Enforcement Administration in Los Angeles, California, that a black woman in white clothing named Brenda McCoy, suspected of carrying narcotics, would be arriving at Bradley International Airport on TWA flight 290 at 8:30 p.m. that evening.Officers detained a woman at the airport fitting this description after a narcotics-detecting canine indicated that her suitcases contained narcotics.Her identification revealed that she was Brenda McCoy, and upon searching her suitcases, the officers found inside each a large bundle wrapped in cellophane and sheets covered with a blanket.The bundles weighed a total of 18.48 kilograms or 40.75 pounds and tested positive for marijuana.The officers placed McCoy under arrest.

"McCoy told the police that she was instructed to call a beeper number when she had the suitcases, and that a person would pick up the suitcases and give [to] her $1500.McCoy called the beeper number and arranged the pickup.The police in unmarked cars watched while a Pontiac Grand Am with a woman in the driver's seat and a male, later identified as the defendant, seated next to her, parked in front of McCoy's apartment building.The defendant exited the vehicle and, after meeting McCoy at the front entrance, followed her to her apartment.As the defendant exited the building with the suitcases, the police ordered him to stop.The defendant, instead, dropped the suitcases and ran out of the building.While outside, he shouted to the woman in the car that they had been set up by the police.The defendant and the woman were apprehended and placed under arrest."Id., 62-63.

The following additional facts, as set forth by the Appellate Court, are relevant to the defendant's claim on appeal that he was denied a fair trial by an impartial jury because the trial court improperly had denied his motion for a mistrial due to juror misconduct."The trial was conducted in front of six jurors and three alternate jurors.After the conclusion of the third day of trial, the trial judge was approached by an alternate juror, M, who indicated that she wanted to speak to the judge.The trial judge instructed the courtroom clerk to speak with the juror.M told the clerk that one of the jurors, L, had stated to the other jurors that he knew the defendant or had seen him `on the street,' that the defendant was not a nice person and that `they're going to get this guy for something.'The clerk informed the trial judge of M's statements, and the trial judge called counsel into court and had the clerk disclose M's statements to them.The next day when court reconvened, the trial judge instructed the clerk to state for the record the statements M made to him.The trial judge decided that it would be necessary to call M into open court to ascertain exactly what she overheard or what had been said to her.Counsel would be given the opportunity to submit questions to the court for the court to ask the juror.

"M testified that L stated to the other jurors that he knew the defendant and had seen him `on the street,' that the defendant was `not a very nice person' and that `they're going to get this guy for something.'She testified that when she heard the statements, she thought that it did not seem right to her and that she should bring this matter to the court's attention.She said that she realized that L did not know the defendant personally.M also said that at a subsequent break in the jury deliberating room, another juror asked her what she thought about what L had said and then commented that `it didn't seem right.'When M was asked by the trial judge if she could sit fairly and impartially and decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence presented, M answered, `Yes.'

"The court then examined L. L stated that he had realized after the trial began that he recognized the defendant as a man he had seen once before when L worked as an automobile mechanic, towing vehicles.L stated that he told the other jurors in the jury room that he knew the defendant.L also stated that he had no idea if the defendant was a nice person because he had never spoken with him and saw him only on that one occasion for a short period of time.L twice denied telling the other jurors that the defendant was not a very nice person and that `they' would get him for something.

"On the basis of the testimony of M and L, the trial judge determined that a separate inquiry of the remaining five jurors and two alternates would be necessary.Juror W testified that another juror, while in the jury room, said that he knew the defendant on the street in the past.She stated that she could keep an open mind and decide the case on the basis of the evidence.Juror T testified that in the jury room with all the jurors present, another juror said that he thought he saw the defendant once and that the defendant was `a pretty tough fellow.'T said that he`tightened up a little bit' when he heard the statements.When asked if he could decide the case fairly, T replied, `Absolutely yes.'He also stated that he could put aside what he had heard and decide the case on the basis of the evidence.

"Jurors P and R testified that they did not hear any statements concerning the defendant.Juror K testified that she heard a juror mention that he passed the defendant on the street once and that she heard the juror say something to the effect that the defendant`did bad' and `he knows he is in trouble.'When asked if she could be fair and impartial, K responded, `Oh, sure.It hasn't changed anything.'She stated that she could put the statements aside and decide the case on the basis of the evidence.Juror A, an alternate, testified that he heard one juror state that he had seen the defendant on the street, but that no statements were made concerning what kind of person the defendant was or what should happen to the defendant, and that what he heard would in no way affect his decision.Juror C, another alternate, testified that one juror stated that he knew the defendant, not personally, but that he had seen the defendant`on the street.'C also testified that nothing was said as to whether the defendant was a bad person or concerning what should happen to him.

"Thus, three of the jurors testified to hearing [some or all of] L's statements regarding the defendant, namely, that the defendant`was not a very nice person,' that the defendant is `a pretty tough fellow,' that `he did bad' and `he knows he is in trouble,' and that `they're going to get this guy for something.'Two jurors had no recollection whatsoever; the rest of the jurors and alternate jurors who heard something heard statements to the effect that L either knew the defendant or had seen him `on the street.'The trial judge instructed all of the jurors and the alternate jurors that they must decide the case solely on the basis of the evidence, and all of them testified that they could decide the case fairly and impartially.

"Subsequent to the court's questioning of the jurors, the defendant requested that L be removed from the jury panel.The state did not object and agreed that L should be discharged and replaced with one of the alternates.Before ruling, the trial court recessed so that defense counsel could confer with the defendant.After the recess, the defendant moved for a mistrial.The defendant acknowledged that the trial court had...