158 Conn.App. 599
Conn. App. Ct.2015Background
- Defendant Adam Benedict, a substitute teacher/coach, was convicted of one count of sexual assault in the fourth degree for sexual contact with a 17‑year‑old student; acquitted on two other counts. This appeal arises from his second trial.
- On prior appeal this court ordered a new trial based on a Confrontation Clause issue; the Connecticut Supreme Court reversed that holding and remanded for consideration of the defendant’s remaining claims, including jury‑selection challenges and harm from admission of a MySpace/MyFacebook login ID ("smoothcriminal77").
- During voir dire a prospective juror (J.J.), a municipal police officer supervised by a state police sergeant, was challenged for cause by defense counsel as a principal (master‑servant) juror; the trial court denied the challenge. The defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges before J.J. was examined.
- Defense counsel also sought a continuance to investigate and potentially challenge the jury array on the ground that an unusually large number of venire members had law‑enforcement connections; the court denied the continuance.
- At trial the court admitted the defendant’s social‑media login identification as an identifying feature; the prosecutor briefly questioned the defendant and a few character witnesses about it. The court limited content-based use of the login.
- On remand this appellate court considered: (1) whether denial of the for‑cause challenge to J.J. and denial of the continuance violated the defendant’s right to an impartial jury, and (2) whether the admission of the login identification was harmful error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Benedict) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venireperson J.J. should have been excused for cause as a principal (master‑servant) juror | J.J. had no disqualifying relationship; he worked for the town police and denied bias | J.J. worked “under” a state trooper who supervised him, creating a master‑servant tie to the investigating state police and presumptive disqualification | Court: no clear error; defendant failed to prove an inextricably close/master‑servant relationship, challenge properly denied |
| Whether denial of a continuance to investigate/challenge the jury array was an abuse of discretion | Denial was reasonable given lack of concrete proof of a systematic selection defect and counsel’s failure to specify needed delay | Array showed disproportionate law‑enforcement representation and counsel needed time to investigate selection process | Court: no abuse of discretion; defendant’s showing was speculative and record gave no basis to find an irregular selection process |
| Whether admission of the social‑media login identification was erroneous and required a new trial | Even if admission was erroneous, any error was harmless because references were brief, limited, not emphasized in closing, and not central to state’s case | Admission of "smoothcriminal77" prejudiced credibility and character evidence and substantially swayed the jury | Court: any evidentiary error was nonconstitutional and harmless; defendant failed to show the verdict was substantially affected |
| Standard of review and burden allocation on these claims | N/A — court applies settled standards: clearly erroneous review for factual findings; abuse of discretion for continuance; defendant bears burden to prove nonconstitutional error harmful | N/A — defendant contends court misapplied standards or that record facts compel different result | Court applied correct standards and affirmed judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roman, 262 Conn. 718 (Conn. 2003) (jury impartiality is core constitutional requirement)
- State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299 (Conn. 1992) (principal challenge requires a relationship so close that disqualification is conclusively presumed)
- Morgan v. St. Francis Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 216 Conn. 621 (Conn. 1990) (challenger’s burden to move claim from speculation to fact; trial court discretion on juror competency)
- State v. Osimanti, 299 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2010) (standard for harmlessness of nonconstitutional evidentiary error)
- Crawford v. United States, 212 U.S. 183 (U.S. 1909) (illustration of master‑servant juror disqualification at common law)
- State v. Coney, 266 Conn. 787 (Conn. 2003) (appellate courts decline relief where defendant offers conjecture/speculation about prejudice from jury selection)