State v. Beverley, 169 Conn. App. 689

Defendant Maurice Beverley was convicted by a jury of felony murder, first‑degree robbery, and criminal possession of a firearm for the April 2, 2010 killing of Kenneth Bagley; sentence: 75 years.
Mary Pearson (cousin) was the prosecution’s key eyewitness; she initially lied to police, later identified defendant and testified for the state while having charges pending and a desire to return home to see her son.
During jury deliberations a juror (R.A.) received an unknown phone call indicating the caller knew he was a juror; R.A. reported it, said it would not affect him, and defense declined to question him.
The court conducted individual voir dire of the remaining jurors; some said others were "nervous" but all stated they could be fair; defense counsel declined to question jurors and said he was "not too concerned" and thought deliberations should proceed.
Defense counsel attempted to cross‑examine Pearson about whether she knew of disputes between the first‑floor tenants and her aunt (Mary Brooks) to show motive to lie; the court sustained the state’s relevancy objection and permitted other impeachment developed at trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Beverley)	Held
Whether trial court abused its discretion by failing to investigate alleged juror bias after juror received a phone call	No abuse; court adequately questioned juror and other jurors; defense counsel waived complaint by consenting to procedure	Court should have probed emotional impact of the call and done an investigation into the call’s source; failure violated right to impartial jury	Waiver: defense counsel expressly declined further inquiry and accepted jurors; claim waived and not reviewed on appeal
Whether exclusion of question about disputes between first‑floor tenants and aunt violated defendant’s right to confront witness	Exclusion proper because no record link showing Pearson knew those tenants or would be afraid; relevance lacking	Question was relevant to show Pearson’s motive to lie and bias (fear of tenants) and court’s restriction unduly limited cross‑examination	No abuse of discretion: proffered inquiry lacked visible connection to facts; substantial impeachment already developed; confrontation right not violated

State v. Roman, 320 Conn. 400 (Conn. 2016) (jury trial impartiality principle)
State v. Ouellette, 271 Conn. 740 (Conn. 2004) (definition and standard for waiver of constitutional rights)
State v. Foster, 293 Conn. 327 (Conn. 2009) (counsel’s consent or satisfaction at trial can waive appellate review)
State v. Annulli, 309 Conn. 482 (Conn. 2013) (scope of cross‑examination and confrontation analysis)
State v. Davis, 298 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2010) (relevancy standard and visible connection test)
Mozell v. Commissioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 (Conn. 2009) (distinction between waiver and forfeiture for plain error/Golding review)