State v. Bowens
Decision Date | 06 March 2001 |
Docket Number | (AC 19070) |
Citation | 773 A.2d 977,62 Conn. App. 148 |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. TYREESE BOWENS |
Spear, Zarella and Daly, Js. Robert G. Golger, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Joy K. Fausey, deputy assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and John Waddock, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
The defendant, Tyreese Bowens, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a).1 The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) dismissed an alternate juror who made allegations of racial prejudice against another juror and (2) denied his motion to suppress a witness' out-ofcourt photographic array identification. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On August 18, 1996, Kevin Hood, the victim, and Tlara Phelmetta were riding around New Haven in Hood's car. They stopped in front of a convenience store at the well lit intersection of Columbus Avenue, Arch Street and Washington Avenue. Hood made some purchases at the convenience store, and, upon his return to the car, Phelmetta noticed a man with a hooded jacket walking toward the car from Washington Avenue. The man came up to the front passenger seat window where she was seated and peered through from about three feet away. She was able to look closely at his facial features before he turned away and walked around the back of the car, appearing to head away from the car. Suddenly, the man changed course and again approached the car. As he walked up to the driver's side, Phelmetta saw him withdraw a gun from underneath his shirt. The man leaned into Hood's open window and shot Hood several times. Phelmetta jumped out of the car through her window and fled to safety.
Thereafter, officers from the New Haven police department patrolling on Columbus Avenue came upon the victim. A few minutes later, Phelmetta returned to the scene and told a police detective that she had witnessed the shooting and gave a description of the shooter. The following day, on August 19, 1996, Phelmetta went to the police station, viewed a photographic array and identified the defendant as the shooter. He was arrested and ultimately found guilty of murder in violation of § 53a-54a (a). This appeal followed.
The defendant claims that the court improperly dismissed an alternate juror, C, who had made allegations of racial prejudice against another juror, R. The defendant argues that when the court removed the alternate juror without cause it violated his right to a fair trial under article first, § 8, of the constitution of Connecticut and the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. We disagree.
We glean the following additional facts from the record and the transcript of the court's ruling. A jury of twelve regular jurors and four alternates was selected to hear the case. On the third day of trial, the court received a note from an alternate juror indicating that one of the regular jurors had made some racially based remarks.2 The court privately questioned the alternate juror, C, about the remarks referred to in the note. C told the court about three separate incidents where she had heard racially based remarks from the same juror, R.3 After the court finished questioning C and consulted with counsel, the court questioned R, who adamantly denied making any racially based remarks.4 Thereafter, the court questioned all of the other jurors in the presence of counsel for both sides.
The first five jurors were asked general questions as to whether they had heard any other jurors make racist comments or comments with racial overtones. All five stated that they had not. One of the five, described as an African-American woman, commented that she did not "feel any tension there either." The court implied that this was significant when it stated: "She certainly would be sensitive to anything."
The remaining nine jurors were questioned more closely by both the court and counsel. Seven of the nine were asked the general question whether they had heard any other jurors make racist or racially motivated comments. All seven responded that they had not. All nine were asked whether they had heard a comment about Burger King, and eight agreed that they had, but none of them had interpreted it as a racially motivated remark. Only five of the nine recalled a comment by a juror about not letting her son shop in selected areas of New Haven, but none of them recalled anything racist in her comment. Six of the nine remembered a juror comment about living on the good side of the bridge, but, again, none of them interpreted it as racist in nature. Six of the nine were asked if what they had heard would affect their ability to sit as a juror, and all six responded that it would not. After all of the jurors were questioned, the defendant moved for a mistrial on the ground that the jury was compromised. The court denied the motion, concluding that The defendant then requested that the court remove R, the juror who allegedly made the racist comments. The state argued that R should not be removed because there was nothing to support C's allegations of racist comments, but that if the court removed R, C also should be removed.
The court granted both parties' requests and removed both jurors because the court did Although the court did not believe that R had used the racial words that C had alleged, the court believed that the subject matter of R's comments was inappropriate for the situation and, thus, removed her from the jury.
With regard to the removal of C, the court was troubled by her inaccurate account of the comments and her giving the court "false information without lying, and I don't believe she lied, but that's what she heard, and that's not borne out by any of the other people who heard the same information and were in the same position to hear that information." The next day the court explained further that
At sentencing, the court again commented regarding the removal of the alternate juror, C, stating that
General Statutes § 54-82h (c) provides in relevant part that "[i]f, at any time, any juror shall, for any reason, become unable to further perform his duty, the court may excuse him...." Our Supreme Court has concluded that excusing a juror pursuant to this statute requires a State v. Allen, 216 Conn. 367, 378, 579 A.2d 1066 (1990). "A person shall be disqualified to serve as a juror if such person is found by the judicial authority to exhibit any quality which will impair that person's capacity to serve as a juror...." Practice Book § 42-5.
Our standard of review of a trial court's decision to remove a juror is clear. (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mills, 57 Conn. App. 356, 363, 748 A.2d 891 (2000); see also State v. Cubano, 203 Conn. 81, 88-89, 523 A.2d 495 (1987).
The defendant argues that there is nothing in the record to support the finding that C had become unable to perform her duties as a juror. Therefore, the defendant claims that the court's removal of C as an alternate juror was an abuse of discretion. We disagree.
The defendant relies on State v. Santiago, 245 Conn. 301, 339-40, 715 A.2d 1 (1998), a case that was decided approximately five weeks after the jury verdict in this case. Santiago provides guidelines for trial courts to follow when there are allegations of racial bias on the part of a juror.5
In Santiago, the Supreme Court held that in future cases, trial courts should investigate fully allegations of racial bias of jurors. ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bowens v. Comm'r of Corr., SC 20204
...Phelmetta went to the police station, viewed a photographic array and identified the [petitioner] as the shooter." State v. Bowens , 62 Conn. App. 148, 149–50, 773 A.2d 977, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 907, 772 A.2d 600 (2001). The petitioner was arrested three days later on August 22, 1996.In ......
-
State v. Tarver
...the juror created unfairness to the defendant.” State v. Mills, 57 Conn.App. 356, 365, 748 A.2d 891 (2000) ; see also State v. Bowens, 62 Conn.App. 148, 157, 773 A.2d 977 (“even if the court had abused its discretion, the defendant cannot show that the dismissal of [the juror] resulted in a......
-
Bowens v. Warden, State Prison, CV144006577S
...the same grounds as contained in the fifth count of the habeas petition. That denial is presently an appeal before the Appellate Court, State v. Bowens, AC For these reasons, the court denies the petition for habeas corpus relief on all grounds. ...
-
State v. Salmon
...and whether the court's ultimate inference of reliability was reasonable." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bowens, 62 Conn. App. 148, 159-60, 773 A.2d 977, cert. denied, 256 Conn. 907, 772 A.2d 600 "[T]he required inquiry is made on an ad hoc basis and is two-pronged: first, it......