State v. Holmes, 176 Conn. App. 156

Background

Defendant Evan Jaron Holmes was convicted of felony murder, home invasion, conspiracy to commit home invasion (jury), and criminal possession of a pistol (bench); total effective sentence 70 years.
Victim was shot in his apartment after defendant and accomplices forced entry; eyewitness Gabriela Gonzales identified defendant at scene; defendant’s blood/DNA found in apartment.
During voir dire, venireperson W.T., an African‑American social worker with family members who had been incarcerated and who expressed distrust/fear of police, was peremptorily struck by the state; defense raised a Batson objection which the trial court denied.
State introduced a recorded phone review of a witness’s prior statements under the Whelan prior‑inconsistent‑statement exception after the witness testified he did not recall details; defendant objected on reliability and cross‑examination grounds.
At trial defendant testified and admitted speaking to Detective Galante after Miranda warnings but did not disclose at that time the specific exculpatory account he later gave at trial; prosecution cross‑examined about those omissions; defense raised (then withdrew) a Doyle objection and later renewed on appeal under Golding.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Holmes)	Held
1. Batson challenge to strike of African‑American venireperson W.T.	Strike was race‑neutral: W.T.’s distrust of police, family convictions, DOC volunteer work could impair fairness in a case relying on police testimony.	Strike was pretextual and racially motivated because those attitudes are common among African‑Americans and W.T. expressly promised to be fair.	Court upheld strike: reasons facially race‑neutral; trial court’s finding of no discriminatory intent not clearly erroneous.
2. Admissibility of recorded prior statement of Melvin Simmons under Whelan	Recording admissible as a prior inconsistent statement meeting Whelan indicia of reliability.	Recording lacked sufficient indicia of reliability, was not inconsistent, and deprived meaningful cross‑examination.	Appellate court declined to review merits: defendant failed to brief prejudice; claim deemed abandoned.
3. Doyle claim re: cross‑examination about silence/omissions after Miranda	Cross‑examination addressed prior inconsistent statements/omissions after defendant voluntarily spoke; thus proper impeachment of credibility.	Questioning used defendant’s post‑Miranda silence to impeach his trial testimony, violating Doyle due process protections.	Denied: defendant voluntarily spoke after Miranda; cross‑examination about omissions probative as prior inconsistent statements and did not implicate Doyle.
4. Preservation / standard for appellate review of constitutional claims (Golding)	State urged harmlessness and that claims were either waived or insufficient.	Holmes sought Golding review for Doyle claim despite counsel having withdrawn trial objection.	Court applied Golding, found record adequate but no constitutional violation; claim fails on prong three.

Key Cases Cited

Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (prohibits race‑based peremptory strikes)
State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465 (establishes Connecticut Batson framework and standards of review)
State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 (Whelan hearsay exception for prior inconsistent statements)
Purkett v. Elem, 514 U.S. 765 (peremptory‑strike justification need only be facially race‑neutral at step two)
State v. King, 249 Conn. 645 (upholding strike for juror who expressed beliefs about sentencing disparities)
State v. Hinton, 227 Conn. 301 (distrust of system/police can be race‑neutral basis for challenge)
Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (post‑Miranda silence generally cannot be used to impeach defendant)
State v. Bell, 283 Conn. 748 (distinguishes Doyle where defendant voluntarily spoke and impeachment by prior inconsistent statements is permissible)
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (Miranda warnings and custodial‑interrogation protections)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (standards for appellate review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
Foster v. Chapman, 136 S. Ct. 1737 (Supreme Court reinforcement that documentary evidence can reveal discriminatory intent in jury selection)