State v. Martinez
Decision Date | 04 October 1977 |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. George Luis MARTINEZ. |
Nicholas P. Cardwell, Hartford, for appellant (defendant).
Bernard D. Gaffney, Asst. State's Atty., with whom, on the brief, was George D. Stoughton, State's Atty., for appellee (state).
Before HOUSE, C. J., and LOISELLE, BOGDANSKI, LONGO and SPEZIALE, JJ.
The jury in this case reported, after some deliberation, that they were deadlocked. The court delivered the "Chip Smith" charge, 1 and the jury returned to their deliberations. Subsequently the jury reported for the second time that they were deadlocked. The defendant's sole claim on appeal is that the court then charged the jury in a manner which was both erroneous and prejudicial, after which the jury returned a guilty verdict.
The second charge in its entirety was as follows:
A juror started to make a remark. The court interrupted him.
Another juror expressed willingness.
The court responded:
Before the court delivered the second charge, the attorney for the defendant moved that the jury's report that they were deadlocked be accepted by the court, without further instruction. When the court announced its decision to urge the jury to continue deliberations, the defendant took an exception. The record does not reveal any objection or exception based on the actual wording of the charge as given. The defendant apparently relies on the denial of his motion for a mistrial, which gave the second instruction as a ground. This motion was filed the day after the jury returned their verdict.
The "Chip Smith" charge, which has been approved by this court on numerous occasions; e.g., State v. Ralls, 167 Conn. 408, 424, 356 A.2d 147; Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 278-79, 294 A.2d 67; sets forth the duty of each juror to reach his own conclusion and to avoid "mere acquiescence." This duty was not mentioned...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. McCall
...v. Klee, supra, 396. A trial court has a large measure of discretion in dealing with a motion for a mistrial; State v. Martinez, 173 Conn. 541, 544, 378 A.2d 517 (1977); and its decision as to the fairness of the trial must be afforded great weight. United States v. Klee, supra, 396. The fo......
-
State v. Stankowski
...conclude that the court's charge, when read as a whole, was prejudicial to the defendant. See State v. Peary, supra; State v. Martinez, 173 Conn. 541, 378 A.2d 517 (1977); State v. Ralls, supra; State v. Keeler, 164 Conn. 42, 316 A.2d 782 (1972); Tough v. Ives, 162 Conn. 274, 294 A.2d 67 (1......
-
State v. Pinnock
...461 U.S. 928, 103 S.Ct. 2088, 77 L.Ed.2d 299 (1983); State v. Stankowski, supra, 184 Conn. at 145-47, 439 A.2d 918; State v. Martinez, 173 Conn. 541, 378 A.2d 517 (1977); State v. Ralls, 167 Conn. 408, 425, 356 A.2d 147 (1974); State v. Schleifer, 102 Conn. 708, 725, 130 A. 184 The defendan......
-
State v. Lyons, 11299
...Stankowski, 184 Conn. 121, 145-47, 439 A.2d 918, cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1052, 102 S.Ct. 596, 70 L.Ed.2d 588 (1981); State v. Martinez, 173 Conn. 541, 378 A.2d 517 (1977); State v. Ralls, 167 Conn. 408, 425, 356 A.2d 147 (1974); State v. Schleifer, 102 Conn. 708, 725, 130 A. 184 (1925). Such......