State v. Ellis
Decision Date | 18 April 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 14808,14808 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Ricky ELLIS. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Elizabeth M. Inkster, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Judith Rossi, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, were John M. Bailey, Chief State's Atty., Warren Maxwell, Asst. State's Atty., and Rosita M. Creamer, Sr. Asst. State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before CALLAHAN, BERDON, NORCOTT, KATZ and MARY R. HENNESSEY, JJ.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the defendant, Ricky Ellis, was deprived of his federal constitutional right to a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community. We conclude that the defendant has failed to establish such a violation and we therefore affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. 1
The defendant was convicted after a jury trial of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134(a)(4), 2 and larceny in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-122(a)(3). 3 The trial court sentenced him to a total term of eight years imprisonment, suspended after three years, and three years probation with drug counseling. 4 The defendant filed posttrial motions for acquittal and for a new trial, both of which were denied.
Thereafter, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court challenging the manner in which his jury panel was selected. The Appellate Court affirmed the convictions without opinion. State v. Ellis, 31 Conn.App. 923, 626 A.2d 1 (1993). We granted certification 5 and remanded the matter to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing as to the circumstances surrounding the selection of venirepersons in State v. Webb, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford-New Britain at Hartford, Docket No. CR 89 371150 (September 12, 1991). The jurors in Webb were drawn from the same venire pool as the jurors in this case. 6 In particular, we asked the trial court to determine whether a supplemental panel, requested for the Webb trial, was selected randomly and if the panel was not selected randomly, whether the selection process in the Webb case impermissibly tainted the venire panel from which the defendant's jury was selected.
On remand, the trial court held an evidentiary hearing and the parties filed briefs on the factual issues presented. The trial court found the following facts: "At all times pertinent to this question, as well as the second question, in the Hartford-New Britain judicial district, venirepersons were summoned for a four week period of service with a new group of venirepersons reporting for service on each Tuesday.
8
The defendant raises two issues in this appeal. He first claims that African-American venirepersons were purposefully directed to the Webb trial, thus depriving him of his state and federal constitutional right to a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community. 9 He also claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt and on the presumption of innocence.
The defendant claims that the trial court's finding that the selection of the supplemental panel in the Webb case was done in a random manner was clearly erroneous. Because we conclude that the trial court's factual findings were supported by the record, we disagree.
(Citation omitted.) United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d 1240, 1244 (2d Cir.1995). In order to guarantee this right, Connecticut adopted General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 51-220a, 10 which requires that venire panels be randomly selected.
In order for a defendant successfully to challenge the composition of his jury array, the United States v. Jackman, 46 F.3d at 1245-46; see also Practice Book § 842; 11 State v....
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. DeMarco, No. 30152.
...but to see whether record supports finding),cert. denied, 552 U.S. 868, 128 S.Ct. 164, 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007); State v. Ellis, 232 Conn. 691, 700-704, 657 A.2d 1099 (1995) (constitutional claims require scrupulous review; clearly erroneous standard apparently applied); State v. Alexander, 1......
-
State v. King
...findings of factual underpinnings necessary to determine constitutional issues arising from jury selection. In State v. Ellis, 232 Conn. 691, 701, 657 A.2d 1099 (1995), Justice Norcott writing for a unanimous court held: [B]ecause of the constitutional implications of the alleged defect in ......
-
State v. Schiappa
...910, 117 S. Ct. 273, 136 L. Ed. 2d 196 (1996); State v. Palmer, 196 Conn. 157, 168-69, 491 A.2d 1075 (1985); see State v. Ellis, 232 Conn. 691, 705-706, 657 A.2d 1099 (1995); State v. Francis, supra, 135; State v. Walton, supra, 227 Conn. 66-67; State v. Tucker, 226 Conn. 618, 651-52, 629 A......
-
State v. Hodge
... ... First, the majority ignores the heightened standard with which we review findings of factual underpinnings necessary to determine constitutional issues arising from jury selection. 99 In State v. Ellis, 232 Conn. 691, 701, 657 A.2d 1099 (1995), Justice Norcott writing for a unanimous court held: "[B]ecause of the constitutional implications of the alleged defect in the jury selection process, we will subject the findings of the trial court to the same `independent and scrupulous examination of ... ...
-
Significant Developments in Criminal Law 1994-1995
...v. Breton, 235 Conn. 206 n. 47, 633 A.2d 1026 (1995); State v. Barnes, 232 Conn. 740, 744 n. 4, 657 A.2d 611 (1995 ); State v. Ellis, 232 Conn. 691, 692 n.1, 657 A.2d 1099 (1995); State v. Merdinger, 37 Conn. App. 379, 383 n.3, 655 A.2d 1167, cert. denied, 233 Conn. 914, 659 A.2d 187 (1995)......