191 Conn.App. 665
Conn. App. Ct.2019Background
- Defendant Angel Carrasquillo was tried by jury and convicted of two counts of murder (as an accessory) and one count of criminal possession of a firearm; mixed verdict on other counts; total effective sentence 80 years.
- Jury deliberated six days, sent multiple notes requesting replayed testimony, clarification, and advising some jurors would be unavailable after Nov. 13; on final day jury sent a deadlock note, two juror availability notes, a note from juror L.D. saying she felt "attacked," then later a verdict note.
- Trial court, after consulting counsel and with no objection, gave a Chip Smith instruction (O’Neil model) to encourage continued deliberation while cautioning jurors not to surrender conscientious views.
- After the Chip Smith instruction juror L.D. sent a note saying she felt attacked but would keep an open mind; defense counsel declined canvassing her; two hours later jury returned a unanimous verdict; jurors were polled and all affirmed.
- Defendant raised three claims on appeal: (1) jury coercion by the Chip Smith instruction and circumstances, (2) denial of mistrial/post‑verdict inquiry (failure to canvass L.D.), and (3) inadequate/additional guidance on accessorial liability when jury asked for clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument (Carrascquillo) | State's / Court's Position | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Chip Smith instruction and surrounding circumstances coerced jury | Instruction and timing (after 5 days, on Friday, with juror availability notes and L.D.’s note) created impermissible pressure on minority jurors to reach verdict | Instruction mirrored O’Neil model, counsel did not object, court repeatedly cautioned jurors and did not require verdict by a time | No coercion; instruction appropriate; no due process or jury trial violation (Golding prongs not met) |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by denying mistrial / refusing postverdict inquiry about juror coercion (L.D.’s note) | L.D.’s note showed juror felt attacked and court’s failure to canvass or investigate warranted mistrial or further inquiry | Defense counsel waived immediate canvass by declining it at trial; court reasonably inferred L.D. would continue deliberating; jurors later polled with no reservations | No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed |
| Whether court’s response to jury note on accessorial liability and overall charge misled jurors about burden or required mental state | Court’s answer (ask jury to specify questions; refer to prior written instructions) left jurors to speculate about what acts constituted intentional aid and temporal nexus | Parties had copy of proposed charge; defense counsel reviewed and did not object (implicit waiver under Kitchens); court reasonably sought clarification from jury before giving further instruction | Waived; no plain error shown; accessorial instruction adequate as given |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. O’Neil, 261 Conn. 49 (Conn. 2002) (approved model Chip Smith deadlock instruction with caution to protect minority juror conscience)
- State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (framework for reviewing unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
- State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (Conn. 2011) (implicit waiver of instructional error when parties receive and accept proposed jury instructions)
- State v. Feliciano, 256 Conn. 429 (Conn. 2001) (Chip Smith charge encourages unanimity but stresses juror’s individual vote must be conscientious)
- United States v. Badolato, 710 F.2d 1509 (11th Cir. 1983) (timing of instruction and absence of an express requirement to reach verdict weigh against finding coercion)