State v. Jackson
Decision Date | 05 November 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 22378.,No. 22377.,22377.,22378. |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Marquis JACKSON. State of Connecticut. v. Vernon Horn. |
Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
Donald D. Dakers, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant in the first case).
Moira L. Buckley, deputy assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant in the second case).
Rita M. Shair, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and, on the brief, Gary Nicholson, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
After a joint jury trial, the defendants, Marquis Jackson and Vernon Horn, appeal from their judgments of conviction. Jackson appeals from his conviction of one count of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c, three counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a1-34(a)(2), two counts of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-134(a)(2), one count of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134(a)(2) and one count of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29-35(a).1 Horn appeals from the conviction of one count of felony murder in violation of § 53a-54c, one count of assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59, three counts of robbery in the first degree in violation of § 53a-134(a) (2), two counts of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 and 53a-134(a)(2), one count of conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree in violation of §§ 53a-48 and 53a-134(a)(2), one count of burglary in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-101(a)(2) and one count of carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of § 29-35(a). On appeal, both defendants claim2 that the trial court improperly (1) denied their Batson3 challenge to the state's peremptory challenges to remove venirepersons, (2) refused to conduct a preliminary inquiry into charges of juror misconduct without first receiving an affidavit from the parties alleging the misconduct and (3) permitted the state to introduce into evidence the prior statement of a witness under the Whelan doctrine.4 Horn also claims that the trial court improperly (1) failed to sever his case from Jackson's, (2) denied his motion to suppress certain eyewitness identification testimony and (3) failed to declare a mistrial, sua sponte, after the jury heard evidence of possible witness tampering. We affirm the judgments of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. On January 24, 1999, at approximately 3.30 a.m., Jackson and Horn, along with Steven Brown,5 entered the Dixwell Deli on Dixwell Avenue in New Haven, wearing masks and carrying handguns. As Horn entered the deli, he fired five or six shots from a nine millimeter pistol. One bullet struck Caprice Hardy, a customer, and killed him. A second bullet struck Abby Yousif, an owner of the deli, in the shoulder. Brown and Jackson followed Horn into the deli.
Jackson then went behind the counter and attempted to open the cash register. Horn and Brown went to the deli's back room where they found Vernon Butler, an off-duty employee, and Warren Henderson, a homeless man who helped out around the store. Butler was hit on his head with the butt of a gun, searched for money and taken to the front of the store by Horn to open the cash register. When Butler could not open the register, Jackson took the cash that Yousif had in his pockets. Butler's cellular telephone was also stolen. The telephone was subsequently used the day after the robbery by Marcus Pearson, who had obtained it from Horn.
During the course of the robbery, two customers, one of whom was Kendall Thompson, entered the deli. Upon entering, each individual was forced to the ground at gunpoint and ordered to turn over whatever money they possessed.
In the back room, Brown riffled through Henderson's pockets, looking for any money that he may have had. Finding no money on Henderson's person, Brown searched the cigar boxes in the back room to see if there was any cash hidden there. After searching the back room, Brown returned to the front of the deli, where Horn was shouting orders by the door and Jackson was still behind the counter near the cash register. Upon hearing the sound of sirens, Jackson, Horn and Brown fled the scene.
The police processed the crime scene and found latent fingerprints on a cigar box in the back room. The prints matched Brown's fingerprints on file with the Bridgeport police department. When interviewed by the New Haven police, Brown admitted his participation in the January 24, 1999 robbery and identified Jackson and Horn as the other individuals involved. Jackson and Horn were arrested and tried jointly. Jackson was found guilty of eight of the ten counts on which he was charged and sentenced to a total effective sentence of forty-five years imprisonment. Horn was found guilty of all ten counts on which he was charged and sentenced to a total effective sentence of seventy years imprisonment. These appeals followed.
The defendants claim that the trial court improperly denied their Batson challenges to the state's peremptory strikes of venirepersons. We disagree.
The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of this claim. Jury selection in this case began on March 8, 2000, and concluded on March 29, 2000, having proceeded for sixteen days. The state was allocated thirty-six peremptory challenges, of which it used twenty-two, and each defendant was allocated eighteen peremptory challenges. Nearly 150 individuals were examined on voir dire before twelve jurors and three alternates were selected. The trial jury, including the alternates, included one black male and three black females.
During the course of voir dire, the state exercised two of its peremptory challenges on black males, C and J.6 Each time, Jackson raised a Batson claim.7 Following the state's race neutral explanation for using its challenge and the defendants' argument that the state's explanation was a pretext, the court denied the Batson claim and dismissed the venirepersons.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, 62 Conn.App. 182, 197-98, 774 A.2d 183, aff'd, 260 Conn. 813, 801 A.2d 718 (2002).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hinton, 227 Conn. 301, 324, 630 A.2d 593 (1993).
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Thompson
...in determining the admissibility of the identification testimony . . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson, 73 Conn. App. 338, 382, 808 A.2d 388, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 929, 814 A.2d 381 (2002). With the foregoing principles in mind, we address each of the challenged id......
-
State v. Holmes
...had negative encounters with the police because they fear that such people will be biased against the government"); State v. Jackson , 73 Conn. App. 338, 350–51, 808 A.2d 388 (rejecting Batson challenge to peremptory strike of African-American juror who "had some relatives that had some gen......
-
State v. Jose A. B.
...for state to exercise peremptory challenge), cert. denied, 528 U.S. 969, 120 S. Ct. 409, 145 L. Ed. 2d 319 (1999) ; State v. Jackson , 73 Conn. App. 338, 350–51, 808 A.2d 388 (rejecting defendant's disproportionate impact argument against prosecutor's race neutral explanations), cert. denie......
-
State v. Holloway
...that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jackson, 73 Conn.App. 338, 386, 808 A.2d 388, cert. denied, 262 Conn. 929, 814 A.2d 381 (2002). Having concluded that the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial when ......
-
TABLE OF CASES
...(1975) 6-1 State v. Hanna, 150 Conn. 457 (1963) 1-7:1.3 State v. Hudson, 122 Conn. App. 804, 998 A.2d 1272 (2010) 2-1 State v. Jackson, 73 Conn. App. 338 (2002) 2-5:3 State v. Jarrett, 82 Conn. App. 489 (2004) 6-1 State v. Jones, 180 Conn. 443 (1980) 1-8:4.1, 1-8:4.2, 1-8:9.1, 1-8:10 State ......
-
CHAPTER 2 - 2-5 CONDUCT IN COURT AND RELATED PROCEEDINGS
...Ct. Oct. 31, 2014).[120] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 3.5(3).[121] Conn. Rules of Prof'l Conduct R 3.3(e). [122] State v. Jackson, 73 Conn. App. 338, 404 (2002); Baldwin v. Jablecki, 52 Conn. App. 379 (1999).[123] Struski v. Big Y Foods, Inc., No. CV 970137108S, 2000 WL 1429478 (Conn. Su......