State v. Jose A. B.
| Decision Date | 22 March 2022 |
| Docket Number | SC 20332 |
| Citation | 342 Conn. 489,270 A.3d 656 |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. JOSE A. B. |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Drew J. Cunningham, New Haven, with whom was Damian K. Gunningsmith, for the appellant (defendant).
Timothy J. Sugrue, assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Maureen Platt, state's attorney, and Elena Ricci Palermo, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
Harry Weller, Rocky Hill, Peter T. Zarella, and C. Ian McLachlan, Hartford, filed a brief as amici curiae.
Alinor C. Sterling, Bridgeport, and James J. Healy, Hartford, filed a brief for the Connecticut Trial Lawyers Association as amicus curiae.
George Welch, human rights attorney, filed a brief for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities as amicus curiae.
Tadhg Dooley, New Haven, filed a brief for Professors and Research Scholars at Connecticut's Law Schools as amici curiae.
William Tong, attorney general, Clare Kindall, solicitor general, and Joshua Perry, special counsel for civil rights, filed a brief for the Office of the Attorney General as amicus curiae.
Christine Perra Rapillo, chief public defender, and Adele V. Patterson, senior assistant public defender, filed a brief for the Office of the Chief Public Defender as amicus curiae.
David N. Rosen filed a brief as amicus curiae.
Georgina Yeomans filed a brief for NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., as amicus curiae.
Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Kahn, Ecker and Keller, Js.
The principal issue in this appeal asks us to revisit our recent decision in State v. Holmes , 334 Conn. 202, 221 A.3d 407 (2019), and to consider whether, given the disparate impact on minority communities, a prospective juror's negative experience with, or distrust of, the criminal justice system provides a race neutral reason for the exercise of a peremptory challenge under the Connecticut constitution. The defendant, Jose A. B., appeals1 from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of three counts of sexual assault or attempt to commit sexual assault and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21 (a) (2).2 On appeal, the defendant claims that (1) the trial court improperly overruled his Batson3 objection to the prosecutor's exercise of peremptory challenges to two venirepersons, and (2) his conviction of two counts of risk of injury to a child violates his right to be free from double jeopardy. We disagree, and, accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The record reveals the following relevant facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history. The victim lived with the defendant, the defendant's wife, who was the victim's legal guardian, and the victim's brother, from the time the victim was eighteen months old. The victim testified that the defendant sexually assaulted her on numerous occasions between 2000 and 2007, when she was between five and twelve years old.4
The state subsequently charged the defendant with sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2),5 sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 2001) § 53a-73a (a) (1) (A),6 attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree in violation of § 53a-70 (a) (2) and General Statutes § 53a-49 (a) (2),7 and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2). The case was tried to a jury, which found the defendant guilty on all counts. The trial court rendered a judgment of conviction in accordance with the jury's verdict, sentenced the defendant to a total effective sentence of seventeen years of imprisonment, followed by two years of special parole, issued a criminal protective order and ordered sexual offender registration. This direct appeal followed.8 Additional relevant facts and procedural history will be set forth in the context of each claim on appeal.
The defendant first claims that his state and federal constitutional rights were violated because the state's peremptory challenges to two venirepersons, N.L. and9 during jury selection violated Batson v. Kentucky , 476 U.S. 79, 96–98, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986). The record reveals the following additional facts and procedural history relevant to this claim.
During the prosecutor's voir dire examination of N.L., the following exchange occurred:
Upon conclusion of the voir dire examination of N.L., the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge. The prosecutor stated, inter alia, that N.L.’s articulated resentment toward the police and her criminal history of a conviction resulting in a pardon warranted the use of a peremptory challenge.12 Defense counsel then raised a Batson objection to the state's peremptory challenge of N.L. The trial court overruled defense counsel's Batson objection, concluding that the prosecutor's proffered reasons for the peremptory challenge of N.L. were race neutral and not a pretext for discrimination.13
The prosecutor subsequently conducted a voir dire examination of C.J., during which they discussed C.J.’s arrest history, which C.J. had only partially disclosed in his juror questionnaire:
The state then questioned C.J. regarding his attitude toward the police and the criminal justice system:
To continue reading
Request your trial
- State v. Patel
-
Inglis v. Comm'r of Corr.
...provides greater protection than does the federal constitution." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jose A. B. , 342 Conn. 489, 507–508, 270 A.3d 656 (2022).17 Even if we assume, arguendo, that the petitioner could show cause and prejudice to overcome procedural default, we reject......
-
State v. Juan J.
...and (3) the [defendant] is more than two years older than such person ...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jose A. B. , 342 Conn. 489, 534, 270 A.3d 656 (2022), quoting General Statutes § 53a-70 (a) (2) ; see also State v. Pierson , 201 Conn. 211, 215, 514 A.2d 724 (1986) ("[w......
-
People v. Johnson
...387 P.3d 1187, 1215-16 (2017) ; People v. Lenix , 44 Cal.4th 602, 80 Cal.Rptr.3d 98, 187 P.3d 946, 965-66 (2008) ; State v. Jose A.B. , 342 Conn. 489, 270 A.3d 656, 675 (2022) ; State v. Rollins , 321 S.W.3d 353, 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) ; State v. McQueen , 249 N.C.App. 543, 790 S.E.2d 897,......