State v. Jose A. B.
Citations
- 342 Conn. 489
Syllabus
Convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree, and two counts of risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed, claiming that the trial court improperly had overruled defense counsel's objections to the prosecutor's use of peremptory challenges to excuse two prospective jurors, C and N, and that his conviction of two counts of risk of injury to a child violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. C is an African-American, and N is also a member of a racial minority. The prosecutor had explained that the basis for the peremptory challenges to C and N was their stated distrust of law enforcement and/or the criminal justice system. Specifically, the prosecutor relied on N's state- ments during voir dire indicating that she previously had been convicted of a crime for which she received a pardon, that she had resented the police at the time she was arrested but no longer felt that way, and that her husband's friend had previously pleaded guilty to sexual assault but that she did not believe the truth of the allegations against him. With respect to C, the prosecutor relied on the fact that, although C had disclosed an incident involving a larceny on his juror questionnaire, he also revealed during voir dire an undisclosed conviction resulting from an assault of a police officer, for which C believed he was unfairly prosecuted. Defense counsel objected to the peremptory challenges on the basis of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79), which prohibits a party from challenging pro- spective jurors solely on account of their race. The trial court overruled the Batson challenges, concluding that the reasons proffered by the prosecutor, namely, N's resentment toward the police and her criminal conviction resulting in a pardon, as well as C's prior arrest for a serious crime for which he believed he was unfairly prosecuted
Judges: Robinson; McDonald; D’Auria; Mullins; Kahn; Ecker; Keller
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
5 cases in this archive cite this case.
- State v. Juan J.Supreme Court of Connecticut· 2022-07-05· cited 20×
- State v. LangstonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2023-06-06· cited 15×
- State v. HaynesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-07-01· cited 10×
- State v. JacquesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-08-26· cited 3×
- State v. McFarlandSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2025-09-02· cited 1×
Cites
57 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-04-30· cited 16,401×
- Blockburger v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1931-12-11· cited 10,676×
- Hernandez v. New YorkSupreme Court· 1991-05-28· cited 4,168×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- State v. GeislerSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-06-18· cited 496×
- Smith v. United StatesSupreme Court· 2013-01-09· cited 276×
- People v. HardyCalifornia Supreme Court· 2018-05-31· cited 249×
- United States v. Edgar Jamal GamoryEleventh Circuit· 2011-03-11· cited 188×
- United States v. MooreD.C. Circuit· 2011-07-29· cited 183×
- State v. BrownSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-12-19· cited 163×
- Flanders Jordan v. Eugene S. LefevreSecond Circuit· 2000-05-08· cited 153×
- State v. MoralesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1995-04-25· cited 129×
- State v. JamesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-06-20· cited 120×
- Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public HealthSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2008-10-28· cited 111×
- State v. HollowaySupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-01-24· cited 110×
- State v. JeffersonWashington Supreme Court· 2018-11-01· cited 98×
- State v. SaintcalleWashington Supreme Court· 2013-08-01· cited 96×
- State v. HodgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-04-06· cited 96×
- State v. MirandaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2002-04-16· cited 91×
- State of Iowa v. Jerin Douglas MootzSupreme Court of Iowa· 2012-01-27· cited 82×
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.