State v. Moore
151 A.3d 412
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2016Background
- Defendant Darnell Moore was convicted by a jury of murder for shooting Namdi Smart in Norwich; sentenced to 53 years and appealed.
- Jury selection revealed very few prospective jurors who appeared to be African‑American (about 117 potential jurors during voir dire; defense observed no African‑American men and only three women who appeared to be African‑American).
- Defense moved to strike the venire and sought an evidentiary hearing, arguing Sixth Amendment fair‑cross‑section and Fourteenth Amendment equal protection violations and asking the court to order collection of juror racial/ethnic data.
- Evidence at the hearing showed jury lists are compiled from state source lists (DOR, DMV, DOL, registrars) and that race/ethnicity data are not collected or retained (questionnaire allows but does not require voluntary disclosure).
- Separately, defendant moved to suppress multiple photographic identifications; witnesses identified Moore from photographic arrays in which his photo appeared in the same position in each array.
- Trial court denied both motions (venire not struck; identifications not suppressed); this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment fair‑cross‑section challenge to venire | State: venire selection is race‑neutral; no proof of systematic exclusion | Moore: venire lacked African‑American males; underrepresentation shows violation and state should collect demographic data | Held: Denied — defendant failed to prove underrepresentation with competent statistics or systematic exclusion; census data insufficient and third Duren prong unmet |
| Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenge to venire | State: no discriminatory intent or evidence system is susceptible to abuse | Moore: disparate impact in practice and lack of data masks discrimination | Held: Denied — defendant failed to show discriminatory purpose or long‑term substantial underrepresentation |
| Request for supervisory relief to mandate juror race/ethnicity data collection | State: current statutory scheme suffices; questionnaire already permits voluntary reporting | Moore: collection needed to evaluate and enforce nondiscrimination in jury selection | Held: Denied — extraordinary supervisory power not warranted; statute allows but does not require respondents to answer race question and relief speculative |
| Motion to suppress photographic identifications (due process) | State: arrays and procedures were proper; witnesses were separately shown arrays with neutral instructions | Moore: identical placement of defendant’s photo in each array and possible witness contact rendered IDs impermissibly suggestive | Held: Denied — court found procedures not unduly suggestive, witnesses separated, neutral instructions given, and no evidence the IDs were tainted; finding supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) (three‑part test for fair‑cross‑section claim)
- Castaneda v. Partida, 430 U.S. 482 (1977) (framework for equal protection challenge to jury selection)
- State v. Gibbs, 254 Conn. 578 (2000) (Connecticut discussion of fair‑cross‑section standards)
- State v. Castonguay, 194 Conn. 416 (1984) (equal protection requires discriminatory purpose for jury selection challenge)
- State v. Outing, 298 Conn. 34 (2010) (standards for assessing suggestive identification procedures and reliability)