State v. Gould
| Decision Date | 17 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. 35758.,35758. |
| Citation | 109 A.3d 968,155 Conn.App. 392 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jeffrey GOULD. |
Glenn W. Falk, Madison, assigned counsel, for the appellant (defendant).
Tracy L. Denholtz, certified legal intern, with whom were Bruce R. Lockwood, senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief, Brian Preleski, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
SHELDON, PRESCOTT and SCHALLER, Js.
The principal issue in this appeal is whether the trial court properly disqualified a prospective juror, E.F.,1 on the ground that he lacked sufficient proficiency in spoken English to serve as a juror. The defendant argues on appeal that the trial court, Alander, J., imposed a more stringent English proficiency standard than is required under General Statutes § 51–217(a)(3), improperly disqualifying E.F., a machinist, despite his ability to both speak and understand the English language. As a result of E.F.'s improper disqualification, the defendant claims that the fairness of his trial is called into doubt. We agree with the defendant that the trial court's excusal of E.F. from jury service on the basis of his purported inability to speak English lacks support in the record. The defendant has failed, however, to demonstrate that he suffered any actual prejudice as a result of E.F.'s excusal. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this appeal. The defendant, Jeffrey Gould, was arrested and charged with one count of sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a–70 (a)(1) in connection with an incident that occurred on the evening of May 11, 2011. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty and elected a jury trial.
During the course of jury selection, E.F., who identified his ethnicity on his juror questionnaire as “Puerto Rican” and claimed to have attended college, was examined by the state and defense counsel for approximately twenty minutes. Because the defendant's claim centers on E.F.'s English language skills, we devote some attention to his voir dire examination:
Following these preliminary questions, the state questioned E.F. on the subject of his own prior experiences with the criminal justice system:
During the course of the state's examination on the subject of E.F.'s prior criminal history, the trial judge interjected and questioned E.F. as follows:
A similar exchange took place during defense counsel's examination of E.F.:
Subsequent to defense counsel's examination, the state challenged E.F. for cause. The state argued that several of E.F.'s answers were “not actually responsive to the questions that were being asked.” In addition, the state argued that E.F. did not provide full answers on the jury questionnaire with respect to his criminal record, suggesting that he either did not understand the questionnaire, which was printed in English, or that he had failed to fully disclose his criminal history. In the case of the latter, the state argued, he should be disqualified for “not fully noting the extent of what he had on the form.”
The court responded,
Defense counsel objected to the state's challenge, citing as a basis for the objection, inter alia, E.F.'s college background and his stated assurance when asked about his English language skills that he understood English fully. On that score, defense counsel opined that E.F. was in the best position to offer an informed opinion as to whether he was able to communicate in English. With respect to E.F.'s voir dire examination, defense counsel pointed out that E.F. had responded to every question posed to him and seemed “completely functional.” Defense counsel also stated for the record that he had understood everything that E.F. had said other than when he mumbled on occasion. The court replied, Defense counsel pressed further, stating, “[b]ut that doesn't mean if you said, pardon me, you wouldn't be able to hear what he said.” Thereafter, the court excused E.F. for cause on the basis of his “significant language barrier,” which the court suggested would “prevent him from fully participating as a juror in this case.”2
The defendant's case proceeded to trial, and the jury found him guilty as charged. The court rendered judgment accordingly, sentencing the defendant to a term of twelve years of incarceration with five years of special parole. The defendant appeals from that judgment.
The defendant argues that the Connecticut statute on the qualification of jurors, § 51–217, does not set a high bar. He contrasts our law, which requires only that jurors be able to “speak and understand” English, with those of other jurisdictions, which impose additional reading and writing requirements to establish proficiency in English. The defendant argues that “overzealous enforcement” of § 51–217(a)(3) is not only legally incorrect, but it tends to create a substantial barrier to jury service in our increasingly diverse society. The defendant further contends that the record does not show that E.F. failed to satisfy the English proficiency requirement set forth in § 51–217(a)(3), but “only that he had more difficulty in speaking than someone for whom English is a first language,” which he claims to be an improper basis for disqualification. We agree.
Our appellate courts have not previously addressed the English proficiency requirement...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Gould
...the judgment of conviction. The Appellate Court, with one judge concurring, affirmed the trial court's judgment. State v. Gould, 155 Conn.App. 392, 393, 109 A.3d 968 (2015). Describing the issue as one of first impression in Connecticut, the Appellate Court initially determined that the sta......
-
State v. Gould
...the judgment of conviction. The Appellate Court, with one judge concurring, affirmed the trial court's judgment. State v. Gould, 155 Conn. App. 392, 393, 109 A.3d 968 (2015). Describing the issue as one of first impression in Connecticut, the Appellate Court initially determined that the st......
-
Gould v. Warden
...the trial court’s excusal of E.F. from jury service on the basis of his purported inability to speak English lack[ed] support in the record." Id. Nevertheless, the Appellate Court also that the petitioner was not prejudiced by this error and was not deprived of his right to a fair trial. Id......
-
Gould v. Barone
...of his conviction with the Connecticut Appellate Court, challenging the trial court's decision to disqualify a prospective juror. Gould, 155 Conn.App. at 393. The Appellate held that the trial court abused its discretion in excusing the juror based on a “significant language barrier, ” but ......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...[441] State v. Benedict, 158 Conn.App. 599, 620, 119 A.3d 1245 (2015). [442] Benedict, 323 Conn. at 661. [443] Id. at 666. [444] 155 Conn.App. 392, 109 A.3d 968, cert. Granted, 316 Conn. 912, 112 A.3d 174 (2015). [445] State v. Gould, 322 Conn. 519, 142 A.3d 253 (2016). [446] Id. at 529. [4......
-
A Servey of Criminal Law Opinion
...[441] State v. Benedict, 158 Conn. App. 599, 620, 119 A.3d 1245 (2015). [442] Benedict, 323 Conn, at 661. [443] Id. at 666. [444] 155 Conn. App. 392, 109 A.3d 968, cert, granted, 316 Conn. 912, 112 A.3d 174 (2015). [445] State v. Gould, 322 Conn. 519, 142 A.3d 253 (2016). [446] Id. at 529. ......
-
A Survey of Criminal Law Opinions
...318 Conn. 495, 122 A.3d 542 (2015). [145] State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 668 A.2d 1288 (1995). [146] Dixon, 318 Conn. at 509. [147] 155 Conn.App. 392, 109 A.3d 968, Cert. granted, 316 Conn. 912, 112 A.3d 174 (2015). [148] Id. at 400. [149] Id. [150] Id. at 406. [151] 158 Conn.App. 599, 119 ......