State v. Thornton
| Decision Date | 17 February 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 28170.,28170. |
| Citation | 963 A.2d 1099,112 Conn.App. 694 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | STATE of Connecticut v. Glendon THORNTON. |
Steven D. Ecker, with whom, on the brief, were James T. Cowdery, Hartford, and Lewis H. Chimes, New Haven, for the appellant (defendant).
Harry Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Michael Dearington, state's attorney, and John M. Waddock, supervisory assistant state's attorney, for the appellee (state).
McLACHLAN, LAVINE and MIHALAKOS, Js.
The constitution of Connecticut is unique among state constitutions in providing an inviolate right in criminal cases to question each venireperson outside the presence of other members of the venire panel. See Conn. Const., art. I, § 8;1 Conn. Const., art. I, § 19;2 State v. Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 247 n. 9, 676 A.2d 384 (1996). The purpose of such voir dire is to enable the court to determine whether the venireperson is qualified to serve on the jury and to assist the parties in the informed exercise of peremptory challenges. See State v. Barnes, 16 Conn.App. 333, 339, 547 A.2d 584 (1988). To protect a party's constitutional right to individual voir dire, the court should allow counsel a reasonable degree of latitude to ask meaningful, probing questions about venire-persons' beliefs and attitudes, particularly when a case involves charges that a member of the community might be reluctant to discuss frankly. The issue in this appeal is whether, under the specific facts of this case involving an allegation of male on male sexual assault and in light of the particular questions asked, the court denied the defendant his constitutional right to question potential jurors regarding their feelings about homosexuality.
The defendant, Glendon Thornton, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of unlawful restraint in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-963 and sexual assault in the fourth degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-73a(a)(2).4 On appeal the defendant claims that the court denied him his state constitutional and statutory5 rights to question members of the venire panel individually about their views of homosexuals and homosexual conduct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. At the time of the events in question, the victim was a twenty year old Quinnipiac University student majoring in marketing who aspired to become a producer of plays.6 One of his favorite television shows was "Cops," a reality show that often dramatized incidents in which police officers placed handcuffed suspects in the backseat of a police car.
On Saturday, September 10, 2005, the victim took a train from New Haven to New York City to see a Broadway play. After meeting members of the cast at the stage door after the play, the victim returned to New Haven via train, arriving at Union Station (station) at approximately 1:10 a.m. on Sunday, September 11, 2005. The victim missed the 1:15 a.m. shuttle bus from the station to the university's Hamden campus and was waiting for the 1:55 a.m. shuttle when the defendant, an Amtrak police officer, approached him and struck up a conversation. The defendant7 was dressed in his Amtrak police uniform and wore a badge that identified him. They exchanged pleasantries about college life and experiences. The defendant asked the victim if he had a girlfriend. When the 1:55 a.m. shuttle failed to arrive, the victim stated that he would take a taxicab to the university. The defendant volunteered to drive the victim to the campus, an offer the victim accepted in order to save the $30 taxicab fare.8
The two men got into a white sport utility vehicle marked with Amtrak police insignia. The defendant drove out of the station and entered Interstate 91 traveling north. The victim was familiar with the route to the university and knew that the most direct route was to take exit ten from Interstate 91. Before reaching exit ten, the defendant informed the victim that he needed to patrol a railroad yard that had been plagued by burglaries and took an exit from Interstate 91 with which the victim was unfamiliar. The defendant drove into an Amtrak railroad yard, continued to a narrow bridge that crossed the Quinnipiac River and down a gravel road. The defendant stopped in a dimly lit area and asked the victim if he had ever seen the back of a police car. The victim replied that he had not, and the defendant told him that he wanted to show him.
The defendant got out of the police car and walked to the rear passenger door. He took out a pair of handcuffs and told the victim that he wanted to demonstrate an arrest. The victim backed away, but the defendant, indicating that it was a joke, held out the handcuffs and key. The defendant moved behind the victim and put the handcuffs on him. After the victim was handcuffed, the defendant told him to sit in the backseat of the vehicle. After the victim sat down, the defendant asked him to lie down on the backseat to experience what it really is like to be placed in a police car after being arrested.
The defendant helped the victim get out of the car and told him that he usually searched a person whom he had arrested. The defendant then patted down the victim, starting at his torso and moving downward. When the defendant reached the area of the victim's genitals, he fondled the victim. Initially, the defendant fondled the victim through his clothing, but he subsequently unzipped the victim's trousers, reached inside and continued to fondle the victim between his outer clothing and his underwear. When the defendant finished, he removed the handcuffs from the victim, and both men got into the police car again. The defendant stated that "most people I search get aroused." The defendant then drove the victim to his dormitory at the university.
When he returned to his room, the victim was confused and spoke to his roommate, stating that he thought that he had been violated. On September 13, 2005, after speaking with his sister, a social worker, the victim filed a complaint with the university security department. After listening to the victim's complaint, the university security personnel contacted the New Haven police. The defendant was arrested and charged with kidnapping in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-92(a)(2)(A) and sexual assault in the third degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-72a(a)(1)(A). The jury found the defendant guilty of the lesser included offenses of unlawful restraint in the second degree and sexual assault in the fourth degree. The defendant was given a total effective sentence of two years in prison, execution suspended, and five years of probation.9
On appeal, the defendant claims that the court violated his right to individual voir dire by prohibiting him from asking prospective jurors about their views of homosexuality. After reviewing the transcript, the parties' briefs and oral arguments, we conclude that the court did not deprive the defendant of his right to individual voir dire.
Counsel for the parties interviewed fifty-seven venire-persons over four days of jury selection: June 19, 20, 27, and July 7, 2006. The claim on appeal arose during the first day of voir dire when counsel for the parties questioned five members of the venire panel. Of the first five venirepersons, two were excused for cause, one was excused by the state and two were selected to be members of the jury. The claim raised by the defendant occurred during defense counsel's voir dire of the fifth perspective juror, J,10 which follows:
The court excused J and stated that the line of questions had been asked before without objection and asked the prosecutor to articulate the objection. The prosecutor explained that he had intended to wait until the beginning of proceedings the next day to raise his objection to the questions "about males with regard to coming out of the closet, whether they are gay or not." He also articulated that unless defense counsel made an offer that those matters were an issue in this case, and the state was not aware of such evidence, the questions should not be introduced to the minds of prospective jurors. He asserted that it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Ebron
......The purpose of such voir dire is to enable the court to determine whether the venireperson is qualified to serve on the jury and to assist the parties in the informed exercise of peremptory challenges." (Citations omitted.) State v. Thornton, 112 Conn.App. 694, 695, 963 A.2d 1099 (discussing Conn. Const., art. I, . 975 A.2d 25 . §§ 8 and 19), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 914, 969 A.2d 175 (2009). . "We have stated that, as a practical matter, the wide range of cases submitted to juries, along with the attendant ......
-
State v. Weaving
......Thornton, 112 Conn.App. 694, 708, 963 A.2d 1099 ("If defense counsel [is] uncertain of the scope of the court's ruling, he should [ask] the court to clarify it.. Having failed to seek a clarification, the defendant cannot .. successfully claim prejudice [on appeal.]" [Citation omitted.] ), cert. denied, ......
- State v. Barnes
-
State v. Reeves
......See State v. Thornton, 112 Conn.App. 694, 710, 963 A.2d 1099 (if defense counsel believed court's ruling was unclear, it was defense counsel's obligation to seek further clarification), cert. denied, 291 Conn. 914, 969 A.2d 175 (2009). . 6. To the contrary, the record discloses that the court was willing to allow the ......
-
2009 Appellate Review
...Conn. 920, 966 A.2d 238 (2009). 103. Id. at 343, 963 A.2d at 80 (Foti, J., dissenting). 104. 290 Conn. 920, 966 A.2d 238 (2009). 105. 112 Conn. App. 694, 963 A.2d I099, cert. denied, 29I Conn. 914, 970 A.2d 727 (2009). 106. 113 Conn. App. 250, 966 A.2d 277, cert. denied, 292 Conn. 901, 971 ......
-
Panel Voir Dire in Connecticut: the Time Has Come
...Judiciary, Pt. 1, 1985 Sess., pp. 169-234. 28. See State v. Robinson, 237 Conn. 238, 247 n.9, 676 A.2d 384 (1996); State v. Thornton, 112 Conn. App. 694, 695, 963 A.2d 1099, cert. denied, 291 Conn. 914, 970 A.2d 727 (2009). Connecticut is also unique in providing in its state constitution t......