State v. Alonzo, 131 Conn. App. 1

Defendant Hector Alonzo stabbed two victims with a box cutter at El Milenio Restaurant in Danbury on February 4, 2007.
Alonzo was charged with attempt to commit murder, assault in the first degree with a dangerous instrument, and assault in the second degree.
During trial, the state moved in limine to bar testimony about Urjiles’ alleged prior violent acts against a third party, which the court granted.
After evidence closed, the court instructed jurors with an acquittal-first scheme: they must acquit first of the greater offense before deliberating the lesser included offense.
Jury found not guilty of attempted murder, but guilty of assault in the first degree as to Urjiles and assault in the second degree as to Naranjo.
Alonzo appeals arguing the acquittal-first instruction violated state jury-trial and due process rights and the preclusion of testimony violated his right to present a defense.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether acquittal-first jury instructions violated the state right to trial by jury	Alonzo contends the instruction burdened jury deliberations and compromised the jury’s fact-finding.	Alonzo argues the instruction violates state jury-trial rights and due process by restricting consideration of lesser offenses.	Not violated; instruction permissible as a procedural method under state law.
Whether acquittal-first instruction violated due process by allowing compromise verdicts	Alonzo claims it created a momentum toward a compromised verdict.	Prosecution rejects risk of impermissible compromise as speculative.	No reasonable possibility of a compromise verdict arising from the instruction.
Whether prohibiting testimony about Urjiles’ alleged prior acts against a third party violated due process or the right to present a defense	Alonzo maintained such evidence was necessary to show his state of mind and defense.	Muhammad precludes testimony of victim’s prior acts against a third party in self-defense contexts.	No; exclusion was proper and did not violate rights.

Beers v. Beers, 4 Conn. 535 (1823) (bequest on jury rights and protections)
Ex Parte Peterson, 253 U.S. 300 (1920) (jury trial rights; change in procedures permitted)
State v. Geisler, 222 Conn. 672 (1992) (Geisler six-factor framework for state constitutional analysis)
Spitzer v. Haims & Co., 217 Conn. 532 (1991) (procedural changes not per se violate right to jury trial)
State v. Sawyer, 227 Conn. 566 (1993) (jury-deliberation structure and lesser-included offenses)
State v. Muhammad, 91 Conn. App. 392 (2005) (limitations on testimony about victim’s prior acts against a third party)
Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340 (2d Cir.) (acquittal-first instruction discussed in federal appellate context)
Smith v. Spisak, 558 U.S. 139 (2010) (unanimous rejection of death-sentence alternatives; instructional relevance)
Spisak v. Mitchell, 465 F.3d 684 (6th Cir.) (acquittal-first instruction discussed; later vacated on appeal)