State v. Gonzalez, 315 Conn. 564

Background

Miguel Gonzalez was tried for murder for the 2007 killing of Miguel Vazquez; DNA testing linked him as a possible contributor to DNA on a hat recovered at the scene. Police had taken a buccal swab from Gonzalez by force after he refused to cooperate while in custody for an unrelated matter.
At trial the state admitted detective testimony and a video of Gonzalez refusing the swab as evidence of consciousness of guilt; defense objected to the video as unduly prejudicial.
After eight days of jury deliberations the jury reported difficulties reaching consensus; allegations arose that one juror (Q.A.) had injected extraneous matters (suggesting witnesses were bribed) and refused to deliberate.
The trial court separately canvassed jurors in camera, found cause, excused Q.A. for (1) considering matters outside the evidence and (2) refusing to deliberate, and replaced her with an alternate; another juror (C.S.) then reported a medical absence and was also excused and replaced.
The reconstituted jury deliberated anew and convicted Gonzalez; he appealed, challenging the jury removals, denial of mistrial motions, and admissibility of the buccal-swab video.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Gonzalez's Argument	Held
Whether trial court abused discretion / violated right to impartial jury by excusing juror Q.A. for injecting extraneous matters into deliberations	Court had cause; juror suggested witnesses were bribed—extrinsic matter—so removal was proper	Excusal improper: juror was using life experience; court should remove only if misconduct affected ability to deliberate fairly or apply heightened standard before removing a holdout	Court affirmed: excusal proper for considering extrinsic matter; removal within discretion and independent ground obviated need to adopt heightened rule
Whether court erred by excusing juror C.S. who missed one day for medical reasons without further inquiry	Given overall circumstances (long trial, prior excusal of Q.A., need to restart deliberations) excusal was reasonable	Court should have inquired how long juror would be unavailable; excusal was premature	Court affirmed: excusal at the outer limit of discretion but justified under the circumstances
Whether trial court should have declared a mistrial instead of replacing jurors	Reconstituting jury and restarting deliberations cures prejudice; mistrial not required absent vitiation of proceedings	Jury was effectively deadlocked; court’s canvass tainted deliberations and required mistrial	Court affirmed denial of mistrial: trial court did not abuse discretion; evidence did not show inevitable deadlock and curative measures were adequate
Admissibility of detective testimony and video of Gonzalez resisting buccal swab as consciousness-of-guilt evidence	Testimony and video probative: refusal to give swab reasonably inferred as consciousness of guilt; probative value outweighed prejudice	Evidence not probative and video unduly prejudicial; admission chilled right to assert legal protections	Court: detective testimony waived at trial; video admissible — probative of consciousness of guilt and not unfairly prejudicial; admission was not an abuse of discretion

Key Cases Cited

State v. Apodaca, 303 Conn. 378 (Conn. 2012) (trial court discretion to excuse juror for cause under § 54-82h)
State v. McCall, 187 Conn. 73 (Conn. 1982) (juror consideration of extrinsic evidence is misconduct; verdict must rest on trial evidence)
State v. Asherman, 193 Conn. 695 (Conn. 1984) (juror may not base verdict on facts not introduced at trial)
Irving v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717 (U.S. 1961) (verdict must be based solely on evidence developed at trial)
State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664 (Conn. 2011) (standards for admitting consciousness-of-guilt evidence)
State v. Hill, 307 Conn. 689 (Conn. 2013) (probative value must outweigh prejudicial effect for consciousness-of-guilt evidence)
State v. Ortiz, 280 Conn. 686 (Conn. 2006) (standard of review and restraint on granting mistrials)