State v. Dixon, 318 Conn. 495

Defendant Randy Dixon was convicted by a jury of murder for shooting Lawrence Acevedo; autopsy showed death from multiple gunshot wounds.
Eyewitness Ervin Moses identified Dixon from a photo array; police told Moses the perpetrator may or may not be in the array (so Ledbetter instruction arguably inapplicable).
At charge conference, the court gave an identification instruction; Dixon did not request a Ledbetter misidentification instruction or object to the jury charge.
During deliberations jurors reported being deadlocked and later sent a note that a juror (J.S.) had been approached by a court attendee at a mall and that jurors had "safety concerns."
The court conducted an in‑camera inquiry: sworn interviews of the foreperson and each juror (defense counsel and prosecutor present; defendant was excluded but had been informed and counsel consulted him beforehand).
After juror interviews, the court denied a defense motion for mistrial, found no prejudice from the contact, received the verdict, and the defendant appealed.

Issue	State's Argument	Dixon's Argument	Held
Whether trial court had duty to give sua sponte Ledbetter misidentification instruction	No obligation because administrator here told witness perpetrator may or may not be present; plus Dixon did not request instruction	Trial court should have sua sponte instructed jury about risk of misidentification under Ledbetter	No error: Dixon conceded no request; procedure here included the warning so Ledbetter did not apply and issue not preserved
Whether scope of court's juror‑bias inquiry was inadequate given jurors' "safety concerns"	Court properly exercised discretion, conducted sworn individual interviews with counsel present, and found no prejudice	Inquiry was too limited; safety concerns could have biased jury and court should have probed further or held a fuller hearing	No abuse of discretion: Brown standard satisfied; jurors unequivocally said contact did not affect votes; court's inquiry was adequate
Whether exclusion of defendant from in‑camera juror hearing violated rights (presence, counsel, presumption of innocence)	Defendant’s presence not required; counsel represented him, he was informed, had transcript access; hearing not a critical stage	Exclusion violated right to be present and to counsel; jurors may have feared defendant, creating adverse inference	No constitutional violation: hearing not a critical stage; counsel was present and consulted defendant; no evidence exclusion was due to safety concerns or affected fairness

State v. Ledbetter, 275 Conn. 534 (2005) (establishes prophylactic rule requiring jury instruction warning about misidentification when identification arose from a procedure and witness was not told perpetrator may not be present)
State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502 (1995) (trial court must conduct an on‑the‑record inquiry into allegations of juror misconduct; scope lies within discretion)
State v. Santiago, 245 Conn. 301 (1998) (racial‑bias allegations demand heightened inquiry; distinguishes such claims from other bias/fear claims)
Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (court should hold a hearing with interested parties when extraneous contacts with jurors are alleged)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (framework for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
United States v. Gagnon, 470 U.S. 522 (1985) (defendant has constitutional right to be present at critical stages)
State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724 (2004) (analysis whether absence from a proceeding denied defendant a critical stage)
State v. Osimanti, 299 Conn. 1 (2010) (addresses juror impartiality and standards for removal based on bias)