State v. Jones, 314 Conn. 410

Background

Defendant William T. Jones was convicted following a trial in which the state introduced a digital video recording as an exhibit.
At charge conference, the trial court required the jury to view the admitted video in open court rather than sending equipment into the jury room, because the courthouse purportedly lacked equipment and the prosecutor’s laptop contained non‑admitted material.
Defense requested that suitable equipment be made available in the jury room so jurors could privately review the video during deliberations.
The trial court did not ask court staff or the parties to attempt to obtain alternative playback equipment and instead directed that any further viewing occur in open court.
On appeal Justice McDonald concurred in the affirmance of the Appellate Court but wrote separately, agreeing the court has discretion to manage exhibit review while concluding the trial court abused that discretion by failing to try to secure equipment; he nonetheless found the error harmless.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in requiring the jury to view a video exhibit in open court rather than in the jury room	The state argued practical constraints and that the prosecutor’s laptop contained non‑admitted material, leaving the court little choice	Jones argued the court abused its discretion by not attempting to secure alternative playback equipment or asking court staff/parties to provide equipment	Court of Appeals affirmed; Justice McDonald would hold the court abused its discretion because it made no effort to obtain equipment but concurred in the judgment as the error was harmless
Whether requiring open‑court viewing of the video was harmful (non‑constitutional error)	The state argued the jury had ample opportunity to view the short video multiple times at trial, the jury never requested to view it during deliberations, and the state’s case was independently strong and corroborated	Jones argued the procedure impeded jurors’ ability to closely inspect, pause, and discuss the video privately, and that the video contradicted key testimony	Held harmless: appellate concurrence concluded the defendant failed to show the error substantially affected the verdict given repeated in‑trial viewings and corroborating evidence
Whether the defendant’s unpreserved constitutional claim (due process/fair trial) merits review	N/A (state contested preservation)	Jones raised a constitutional challenge on appeal without preserving it at trial	Not reviewed: claim was not preserved and did not satisfy Golding; appellate concurrence declined to reach the constitutional claim

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Saunders, 553 F.3d 81 (1st Cir. 2009) (approving judge’s diligent efforts to provide materials to jury when technical issues arose)
United States v. Rose, 522 F.3d 710 (6th Cir. 2008) (approving conversion of digital recordings so jury could privately review admitted evidence)
State v. West, 274 Conn. 605 (Conn. 2005) (discussing purpose of jury secrecy to protect deliberations)
State v. Wood, 208 Conn. 125 (Conn. 1988) (noting practice of supplying exhibits to juries for private review)
Capone v. Sloan, 149 Conn. 538 (Conn. 1961) (historic practice of providing exhibits to juries)
State v. Wallace, 78 Conn. 677 (Conn. 1906) (early authority on exhibits and jury review)
State v. Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2012) (harmless‑error framework for nonconstitutional evidentiary rulings)
State v. Gould, 241 Conn. 1 (Conn. 1997) (courts should have adequate means to acquire relevant evidence)
State v. Latour, 276 Conn. 399 (Conn. 2005) (defining structural error and extrinsic trial defects)
Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U.S. 254 (U.S. 1986) (example of structural error requiring reversal)
Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1967) (structural error where juror selection was discriminatory)
Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510 (U.S. 1927) (structural error where judge had financial interest)
State v. Osbourne, 138 Conn. App. 518 (Conn. App. 2012) (holding restricted viewing of a video exhibit did not meet Golding for constitutional review)