State v. Raynor
Citations
- 334 Conn. 264
Syllabus
Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of assault in the first degree as an accessory and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree, the defendant, an African-American, appealed to the Appellate Court, claim- ing that the prosecutor engaged in racially disparate treatment during jury selection, in violation of Batson v. Kentucky (476 U.S. 79), by excusing a prospective juror, R, on the basis of his employment history, even though the prosecutor accepted two other venirepersons, I and G, whom the defendant claimed were nonminority venirepersons with work restrictions similar to those of R. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court and concluded that the record was inadequate to review the defendant's unpreserved Batson claim because, inter alia, the transcripts of the voir dire did not indicate the racial composition 334 Conn. 264 DECEMBER, 2019 265 State v. Raynor of the empaneled jury. The Appellate Court also found that, although the trial court had, sua sponte, remarked that R was not the same race as the defendant, there was nothing in the record to indicate the race or ethnicity of either R or I, and, without that information, the court could not engage in a disparate treatment analysis under Batson. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the failure of the record to indicate the racial composition of the empaneled jury rendered it inadequate to review his Batson claim: this court adopted the Appellate Court's well reasoned opinion as a proper statement of the certified issue and the applicable law concerning that issue and, accordingly, affirmed the Appellate Court's judgment; moreover, this court agreed with the state's alternative ground for affirmance that the trial court's finding that the prosecutor did not commit purposeful discrimination in exercising a peremptory challenge to strike
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- this court may ‘‘rephrase’’ certified question that ‘‘does not properly frame the issues pre- sented in the appeal because it inaccurately reflects the holding of the Appellate Court’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)
- court may rephrase certified question to more accurately reflect issue
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Robinson; Palmer; McDonald; D’Auria; Kahn; Ecker; Vertefeuille
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
13 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Batson v. KentuckySupreme Court· 1986-04-30· cited 16,401×
- Powers v. OhioSupreme Court· 1991-04-01· cited 2,917×
- State v. GoldingSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1989-12-19· cited 2,736×
- Stamford Hospital v. VegaSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1996-04-16· cited 126×
- State v. HodgeSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1999-04-06· cited 96×
- Turner v. MississippiSupreme Court· 1999-11-01· cited 79×
- Howard v. CaliforniaSupreme Court· 1992-10-19· cited 67×
- State v. SmithSupreme Court of Connecticut· 1992-05-05· cited 66×
- United States v. Salvador Hernandez-EstradaNinth Circuit· 2014-04-30· cited 36×
- State v. RigualSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2001-05-08· cited 18×
- Brenmor Props., LLC v. Planning & Zoning Comm'n of LisbonSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2017-06-27· cited 12×
- United States v. Salvador Hernandez-EstradaNinth Circuit· 2012-12-05· cited 8×
- State v. HolmesSupreme Court of Connecticut· 2019-12-24· cited 6×
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.