State v. Mukhtaar
Decision Date | 17 May 2000 |
Docket Number | (SC 15801) |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Parties | STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ABDUL MUKHTAAR |
Officially released May 17, 20001.
McDonald, C. J., and Borden, Palmer, Sullivan and Callahan, JS. Suzanne Zitser, assistant public defender, with whom, on the brief, was Mark Rademacher, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).
Susann E. Gill, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Jonathan C. Benedict, state's attorney, and John C. Smriga, senior assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
After a jury trial, the defendant, Abdul Mukhtaar, was convicted of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.2 The trial court rendered judgment 3 in accordance with the jury verdict, and the defendant appealed.4 On appeal, the defendant maintains that the trial court improperly: (1) rejected his claim that the state, during jury selection, had exercised its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner; (2) failed to make an adequate inquiry into allegations of juror bias; (3) permitted the state to introduce a witness' prior inconsistent written statement as substantive evidence; and (4) instructed the jury on the presumption of innocence and reasonable doubt. We reject the defendant's claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. At approximately 4 p.m. on February 14, 1996, Benjamin Sierra, Jr., was driving his parents' car on Fairfield Avenue in Bridgeport. While stopped at a red light at the intersection of Fairfield and Iranistan Avenues, Sierra spotted two young women, Tracey Gabree and Terri Horeglad, with whom he was acquainted, standing at a nearby pay telephone. Sierra waved to Gabree and Horeglad and they approached and entered Sierra's car. Horeglad sat in the front passenger seat and Gabree sat in the back seat.
Gabree asked Sierra for a cigarette. Sierra then turned around and gave her a cigarette and a light. Sierra asked Gabree and Horeglad where they were going and one of them responded that they were homeless and just wanted to get warm.
When Sierra turned back toward the front of the car, he observed that his vehicle was blocked by a tan car that was facing the wrong direction on Fairfield Avenue. At that moment, Gabree shouted: "Oh shit, Kareem!" Gabree then fled from Sierra's car. A man, later identified by Sierra and Gabree as the defendant, emerged from the tan car and approached the passenger side of Sierra's car, where Horeglad remained seated. Sierra jumped out of his car and asked the defendant what was wrong. The defendant, who did not respond, pulled out what appeared to be a .32 or .38 caliber chrome plated revolver and fired four shots at Horeglad, each of which entered the right side of her body. Horeglad died as a result of the gunshot wounds. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.
The defendant first claims that he is entitled to a new trial because the state improperly exercised its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. We disagree.
Before addressing the defendant's contentions, we first summarize the applicable law. "In Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986)] the United States Supreme Court recognized that a claim of purposeful racial discrimination on the part of the prosecution in selecting a jury raises constitutional questions of the utmost seriousness, not only for the integrity of a particular trial but also for the perceived fairness of the judicial system as a whole.... The court concluded that [a]lthough a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise permitted peremptory challenges for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his [or her] view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried ... the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race .... State v. Robinson, [237 Conn. 238, 243-44, 676 A.2d 384 (1996)]....
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207, 218-24, 726 A.2d 531 (1999); accord State v. King, 249 Conn. 645, 657-60, 735 A.2d 267 (1999). Guided by these principles, we now turn to the defendant's claim.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly denied his Batson challenge to the state's use of a peremptory challenge to strike venireperson J.J.,7 an African-American female. The defendant argues that the state's challenge of J.J. was pretextual because the proffered explanation for striking her was not supported by her responses and, also, because the state later accepted a white venireperson, J.O., who, according to the defendant, gave answers comparable to those of J.J.
The following additional facts are necessary to our resolution of this claim. During her voir dire examination, J.J. indicated to defense counsel that she might be uncomfortable serving on the jury.8 Thereafter, the assistant state's attorney (state's attorney), during his questioning of J.J., sought to clarify why J.J. had indicated some discomfort with serving as a juror in this case. J.J. responded that she was uncertain whether she "really could be fair in [her] judgment." Upon further questioning, J.J. explained that making decisions affecting another person's life would be different from making decisions concerning her own.9 J.J. also agreed that she would not have a problem acquitting the defendant if the state did not prove its case. When the state's attorney asked J.J. if she would have any difficulty convicting the defendant if she found that the state had proved its case, she responded: When asked if her hesitation would affect her ability to be objective in a criminal case, she answered: "I think there's always some hesitation."
At the conclusion of J.J.'s voir dire, the state's attorney moved to excuse her for cause, citing concerns about whether she could be objective.10 The trial court denied that motion. The state then sought to exercise a peremptory challenge against J.J. The defendant objected on the ground that the challenge was racially motivated. The state's attorney advanced the same explanation that he had made in support of his challenge for cause, adding that "if a person comes in here and they express at the very minimum ... hesitation in perhaps being able to find someone guilty, I would certainly be irresponsible if I did not excuse that person whether they were black, white or any other race." The trial court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Connor, No. 18099.
...inadequate to ensure the fair and just administration of the courts. . . ." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280, 290 n. 11, 750 A.2d 1059 (2000). 24. The defendant contends that the January 21, 2006 letter that he had submitted to the court requesting counse......
-
State v. Osimanti, No. 18311.
...to the United States constitution." 30State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 522, 668 A.2d 1288 (1995); see also, e.g., State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280, 296-97, 750 A.2d 1059 (2000), abrogated in part on other grounds as stated in State v. Winot, 294 Conn. 753, 778, 988 A.2d 188 (2010). A trial co......
-
State v. Elson, No. 31511.
...inadequate to ensure the fair and just administration of the courts...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280, 290 n. 11, 750 A.2d 1059 (2000); see also Practice Book §§ 60-1 and 60-2. Additionally, "[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justic......
-
State v. Pierre, No. 17227.
...as substantive evidence; like all other evidence, its credibility is grist for the cross-examination mill." State v. Mukhtaar, 253 Conn. 280, 306-307, 750 A.2d 1059 (2000). Applying this reasoning in the context of the present case, we note that Carr's written statement to the police bears ......
-
Other grounds for suppressing confessions
...use of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence where such statements have been deemed unreliable . In State v Mukhtaar , 750 A.2d 1059 (Conn. 2000), the Connecticut SUPPRESSING CONFESSIONS: OTHER GROUNDS §12:18 Suppressing Criminal Evidence 12-10 Supreme Court noted that the “......
-
Other grounds for suppressing confessions
...use of prior inconsistent statements as substantive evidence where such statements have been deemed unreliable . In State v Mukhtaar , 750 A.2d 1059 (Conn. 2000), the Connecticut Supreme Court noted that the “linchpin of admissibility is reliability,” and a prior inconsistent statement may ......