State v. Gould
| Citation | 322 Conn. 519,142 A.3d 253 |
| Decision Date | 16 August 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 19471.,19471. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Jeffrey P. GOULD. |
Glenn W. Falk, assigned counsel, Madison, for the appellant (defendant).
Bruce R. Lockwood, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, was Brian Preleski, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Pamela S. Nagy, assistant public defender, and Jasmine Gonzales Rose filed a brief as amicus curiae.
ROGERS, C.J., and PALMER, ZARELLA, McDONALD, ESPINOSA, ROBINSON and VERTEFEUILLE, Js.*
McDONALD
, J.
The dispositive issue in this certified appeal is whether a trial court's purportedly improper exclusion of a prospective juror for cause on the ground that he was “not able to speak and understand the English language” within the meaning of General Statutes § 51–217(a)(3)
constitutes per se reversible error. The defendant, Jeffrey P. Gould, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court affirming the trial court's judgment of conviction, in light of its conclusion that the trial court's improper exclusion of a venireperson on this basis was not prejudicial. The defendant contends that, because the assessment of the English language skills and accents of nonnative speakers may reflect implicit or unconscious bias relating to ancestry or national origin, the improper exclusion of a prospective juror on the basis of such factors should be deemed commensurate with the improper exclusion of a prospective juror on the basis of a suspect classification, which is subject to automatic reversal. We conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the trial court's excusal of the prospective juror for cause under § 51–217(a)(3)
was subject to reversal only upon a showing of prejudice.
The record reveals the following undisputed facts. The defendant was brought to trial on a charge of sexual assault in the first degree. During voir dire, an issue arose regarding the English proficiency of venireperson E,1 whose juror application revealed a Hispanic surname and listed his ethnicity as Puerto Rican.2 After E answered several preliminary questions, which revealed, among other things, that he had attended college before being employed as a machinist, the following colloquy ensued:
After a further exchange with the prosecutor, E clarified that he was charged with a drug crime in connection with the incident in which a “guy put something on [him],” explaining that “the police say that they see me throwing something out of my body and they put charges on me.” E acknowledged that he had failed to disclose the charges related to that incident on his juror questionnaire.
Defense counsel also questioned E about his ability to understand English:
After the voir dire of E concluded, the state challenged him for cause, claiming that “a good number of [E's] answers were not actually responsive to the questions that were being asked.” In addition, the state asserted that E had failed to provide a full accounting of his criminal record on his juror questionnaire, suggesting that he either did not understand the form or intentionally had failed to disclose his criminal history, the latter of which would independently warrant disqualification. Defense counsel objected, citing, inter alia, E's college background and E's assurances that he understands English fully.
The trial court responded:
Defense counsel argued that he had understood everything E said, “other than ... his mumbling,” to which the trial judge responded, Thereafter, the court ruled that it would excuse E for cause based on its view that “he has a significant language barrier that will prevent him from fully participating as a juror in this case.”
The defendant's case proceeded to trial, and the jury found him guilty as charged. The court rendered judgment accordingly, from which the defendant appealed.
On appeal before the Appellate Court, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly excused E for cause, and that the significant interests implicated required automatic reversal of 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 statutory mandate that “[a] person shall be disqualified to serve as a juror if such person ... is not able to speak and understand the English language”; General Statutes § 51–217(a)(3) ; requires, at a minimum, that a prospective juror “have sufficient language skills to understand the proceedings and resolve the factual issues presented at trial.” State v. Gould, supra, at 400, 109 A.3d 968. The Appellate Court underscored that, in making such an assessment, “trial courts must be cognizant of the need to avoid prejudices, conscious and unconscious, that are associated with assessing the English language skills of nonnative speakers.” Id., at 403, 109 A.3d 968. Ultimately, the Appellate Court concluded that the trial court had abused its discretion in excusing E because the record did not support its determination that E “would not be able to communicate with other jurors.” Id., at 403–404, 109 A.3d 968. The Appellate Court determined that his excusal was unjustified.
. Notwithstanding that determination, the Appellate Court held that the defendant was not entitled to a new trial because he had failed to demonstrate that he suffered any actual prejudice as a result of E's excusal. Id., at 409, 109 A.3d 968.
In his concurring opinion, Judge Prescott acknowledged that he “share [d] the majority's recognition of the value and importance of promoting jury service by all qualified citizens regardless of their race, gender, color, creed or national origin,” but disagreed with its conclusion that the trial court's excusal of E was improper. Id. Judge Prescott asserted that the “majority virtually ignore[d] or, at most, pa[id] lip service to, the long established, highly deferential standard of review regarding a trial court's determination regarding a juror's competence to serve.” Id. Judge Prescott concluded that the trial court's determination that E lacked sufficient proficiency in English to satisfy the requirements of § 51–217(a)(3)
was a factual finding that, based on the cold record, was not clearly erroneous. Id., at 416–17, 109 A.3d 968. Accordingly, Judge Prescott concluded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting the state's challenge of E for cause. Id., at 423, 109 A.3d 968.
We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate Court properly concluded that the trial court's disqualification of E did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Holmes
...In response, the state relies on Hernandez v. New York , 500 U.S. 352, 111 S. Ct. 1859, 114 L. Ed. 2d 395 (1991), State v. Gould , 322 Conn. 519, 142 A.3d 253 (2016), and State v. Edwards , supra, 314 Conn. 465, 102 A.3d 52, to contend that the Appellate Court properly upheld the trial cour......
-
Pimentel v. City of Methuen, Civil Action No. 17–11921–FDS
...understanding of the role language plays in our multiethnic society has evolved" over the past three decades); State v. Gould , 322 Conn. 519, 536–37, 142 A.3d 253 (2016) (declining to address whether language restrictions are pretexts for unlawful discrimination based on race or national o......
-
Gould v. Warden
... ... ability to both speak and understand the English language. As ... a result of E.F.’s improper disqualification, the ... [petitioner] claim[ed] that the fairness of his trial is ... called into doubt." State v. Gould, 155 ... Conn.App. 392, 393, 109 A.3d 968 (2015). The Appellate Court ... "agree[d] ... that 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 ... ...
-
In re Sydnei V.
...court in In re Leilah W. ” In re Elijah G.-R. , supra, 167 Conn.App. at 18, 142 A.3d 482.23 In the recent case of State v. Gould , 322 Conn. 519, 534–35, 142 A.3d 253 (2016), our Supreme Court reasoned that the “defendant's argument that the improper exclusion of a prospective juror even wi......