342 Conn. 489
Conn.2022Background
- Defendant Jose A. B. was convicted after a jury trial of sexual assault (first and fourth degree), attempt to commit sexual assault (first degree), and two counts of risk of injury to a child; sentence imposed and appeal taken to the Connecticut Supreme Court.
- During jury selection the prosecutor used peremptory challenges to excuse two minority venirepersons (N.L. and C.J.), citing their criminal histories and expressed distrust or resentment of police/criminal justice as race-neutral reasons; defense raised Batson objections.
- The trial court overruled the Batson objections, finding the prosecutor’s explanations race neutral and not pretextual; defendant appealed that ruling under both federal and Connecticut constitutions.
- Defendant also claimed double jeopardy: that risk of injury to a child is a lesser included offense of the sexual assault charges, so multiple convictions/punishments were barred under Blockburger.
- The Supreme Court addressed (1) whether distrust of law enforcement is a facially race-discriminatory basis under the Connecticut Constitution and whether the prosecutor’s strikes were pretextual, (2) whether double jeopardy barred the convictions, and (3) whether to adopt the Jury Selection Task Force’s proposed appellate-review changes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Jose) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether a venireperson’s distrust of law enforcement is a nonracial, constitutionally valid reason for a peremptory strike under the Connecticut Constitution (Batson second prong) | Distrust of police is race-neutral (consistent with federal law and prior Connecticut precedent); rulemaking (Task Force) is addressing reforms so court should exercise restraint | Distrust has disparate impact on minorities and implicates implicit bias; Connecticut Constitution should afford greater protection than federal Batson | Court declined to expand state constitutional protections now; did not adopt a per se prohibition and treated distrust as facially race neutral for purposes of this case (exercised judicial restraint given ongoing rulemaking) |
| 2. Whether the prosecutor’s strikes of N.L. and C.J. were pretextual (Batson third prong) | Challenges were grounded in each venireperson’s voir dire answers and incomplete questionnaire; no pattern showing race-based exclusion | Prosecutor targeted minority jurors, questioned C.J. more extensively and used strikes disproportionately against jurors with arrests | Trial court’s credibility findings were not clearly erroneous; reasons were not pretextual and Batson objection was properly overruled |
| 3. Whether convictions for risk of injury to a child violate double jeopardy as lesser-included offenses of sexual assault (Blockburger test) | Statutory elements are distinct under Blockburger; prior Connecticut precedent supports separate offenses | The way offenses were alleged shows risk of injury is necessarily included in sexual-assault counts, so multiple convictions punish the same offense | Applied Blockburger (and Tinsley): statutes have different elements (e.g., sexual intercourse / age-gap and intentional sexual contact vs. risk of injury’s different elements); convictions do not violate double jeopardy |
| 4. Whether the court should adopt the Jury Selection Task Force’s proposed appellate-review standard (de novo review of Batson denials) | Rulemaking and public process are ongoing; adoption by judges through Rules Committee preferable before judicially imposing new standard | Court should adopt Task Force proposal to improve remedy for disparate impact and implicit bias | Court declined to adopt de novo appellate review at this time and left the matter for the rules process |
Key Cases Cited
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (1986) (prohibits race-based peremptory challenges under the Equal Protection Clause)
- State v. Holmes, 334 Conn. 202 (2019) (criticized Batson’s shortcomings re: implicit bias, created Jury Selection Task Force)
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932) (test for whether two statutory offenses are the same for double jeopardy)
- State v. Tinsley, 340 Conn. 425 (2021) (clarified that courts compare statutory elements—not the information’s factual allegations—when applying Blockburger)
- State v. Alvaro F., 291 Conn. 1 (2009) (held risk of injury and sexual-assault offenses are distinct for double jeopardy purposes)
- State v. Saintcalle, 178 Wn.2d 34 (2013) (Washington court examined Batson procedures and led to rule-based reforms addressing disparate impact)