State v. Robinson
Decision Date | 04 June 1996 |
Docket Number | No. 15313,15313 |
Citation | 237 Conn. 238,676 A.2d 384 |
Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Shawn ROBINSON. |
Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
Deborah DeHart Cannavino, Stamford, with whom were William H. Narwold, Hartford, and, on the brief, Temmy Ann Pieszak, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant (defendant).
Marjorie Allen Dauster, Assistant State's Attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, State's Attorney, and David J. Strollo, Assistant State's Attorney, for appellee (state).
Before PETERS, C.J., and CALLAHAN, BERDON, NORCOTT and KATZ, JJ.
Federal and state constitutional law prohibit peremptory challenges of jurors if such challenges are racially motivated. The principal issue in this certified appeal is the identification of the point in time during the jury selection process at which a litigant must voice an objection to a peremptory challenge that allegedly was based on race. After a jury trial, the defendant, Shawn Robinson was convicted of two counts of assault in the second degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 53a-60. 1 The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, and the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court provisionally reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings to determine whether the defendant had raised a timely objection to the state's peremptory challenge of a venireperson. State v. Robinson, 38 Conn.App. 598, 662 A.2d 1295 (1995). We granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal. 2 We reverse the judgment of the Appellate Court and remand the case to that court with direction to remand to the trial court for a new trial.
The defendant has not challenged, either in the Appellate Court or in this court, the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions for assault in the second degree. The jury reasonably could have found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that, while the defendant was an inmate at the Manson Youth Correctional Facility in Cheshire, he struck and intentionally caused physical injury to two correctional officers who were engaged in the performance of their duties.
The only issue before us is the defendant's claim that, in selecting the six person jury that convicted him of these assaults, the state improperly used its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. The opinion of the Appellate Court describes the relevant facts. "Of the first thirty-eight venirepersons called for jury selection, 3 three were black. One of those three was excused by the court for hardship, and the other two, Lisa Spruill and Melvin Perry, were excused by the state through the use of peremptory challenges.
State v. Robinson, supra, 38 Conn.App. at 605-606, 662 A.2d 1295.
On the issue of law concerning the proper timing for a Batson challenge, the Appellate Court concluded that, in order to avoid a finding of waiver, a defendant must object to the state's use of a peremptory challenge on equal protection grounds "at that point in the voir dire proceedings when the possibility of purposeful discrimination became or should have become apparent." Id., at 615, 662 A.2d 1295. In light of this conclusion, the Appellate Court remanded this case to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the defendant had objected in a timely manner. Id., at 615-16, 621, 662 A.2d 1295.
For future cases, the Appellate Court exercised its supervisory powers to establish a rule requiring contemporaneous notice. As articulated by the Appellate Court, the proposed contemporaneous notice procedure would require a defendant, whenever the state exercised a peremptory challenge, to alert the trial court and the state that, at some later time, the defendant might raise a Batson claim with reference to the propriety of that peremptory challenge. The defendant would then be required to raise a plenary claim that a peremptory challenge had not been racially neutral, as soon as he or she had become aware, or should have become aware, of the relevant facts as they became manifest during the questioning of other potential jurors. If the defendant either did not notify the court and the state immediately of a possible future Batson challenge or did not pursue the Batson claim further as soon as he or she had grounds reasonably to have done so, the Batson challenge would have been deemed waived. In the absence of a waiver, the trial court would hold a hearing to determine the validity of the Batson claim once it had matured. Id., at 617, 662 A.2d 1295.
The defendant appeals the Appellate Court's disposition of his Batson claim. He argues that any requirement that a Batson claim must be raised at the moment a defendant becomes aware or should become aware of a possible equal protection violation impairs his equal protection rights under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution. 5 Furthermore, he contends that the contemporaneous notice rule adopted prospectively by the Appellate Court would similarly fail to protect a defendant's equal protection rights. The state urges us to uphold the rulings of the Appellate Court as constitutionally adequate and protective of judicial resources. We agree with the defendant. Rather than adopt the contemporaneous notice rule, we conclude that a party has timely raised an equal protection objection to the use of a peremptory challenge if that claim is brought to the attention of the trial court before the jury has been sworn.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hinton, 227 Conn. 301, 323, 630 A.2d 593 (1993); State v. Smith, 222 Conn. 1, 10-11, 608 A.2d 63, cert. denied, 506 U.S. 942, 113 S.Ct. 383, 121 L.Ed.2d 293 (1992); State v. Gonzalez, 206 Conn. 391, 394, 538 A.2d 210 (1988). Since Batson, the court has "reaffirmed repeatedly [its] commitment to jury selection procedures that are fair and nondiscriminatory." J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, ----, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 1421, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) ( ); see Georgia v. McCollum, 505 U.S. 42, 49-50, 112 S.Ct. 2348, 2353-54, 120 L.Ed.2d 33 (1992) ( ); Edmonson v. Leesville Concrete Co., 500 U.S. 614, 628, 111 S.Ct. 2077, 2087, 114 L.Ed.2d 660 (1991) ( ); Powers v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 416, 111 S.Ct. 1364, 1373-74, 113 L.Ed.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. King
...Protection Clause15 forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race16 .... State v. Robinson, [237 Conn. 238, 243-44, 676 A.2d 384 (1996)]. Relying on the rationale underlying Batson, the United States Supreme Court has held that gender-based challenges ......
-
State Of Conn. v. Myers
...line rule that a Batson challenge is timely if the defendant raises it at any time before the jury is sworn. State v.Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 245-50, 676 A.2d 384 (1996). The court noted in Robinson that to make a claim of disparate treatment, the defense would need to compare the prosecuto......
-
State v. Hodge
...serve on the jury. Conn. Const., art. I, § 19;13 General Statutes § 54-82f;14 Practice Book § 848 [now § 42-12]."15State v. Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 247, 676 A.2d 384 (1996). Because the purpose of voir dire is to discover "if there is any likelihood that some prejudice is in the juror's mi......
-
State v. Rigual
...to be applied. When the trial court improperly fails to hold a Batson hearing, there are two remedial alternatives. State v. Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 253, 676 A.2d 384 (1996). "We could direct a limited remand, ordering the trial court to conduct a hearing now to determine whether the state......