State v. Omar, 136 Conn. App. 87

Undercover officers conducted a narcotics purchase at the Sugar Bowl in Waterbury; the defendant placed two crack cocaine bags on a mailbox after the female seller signaled the buyer.
Police arrested Omar six weeks later; he was charged with possession with intent to sell, sale, conspiracy, and related offenses within 1500 feet of a school.
During voir dire, the defendant challenged three venirepersons for cause; the court denied, and the defendant exhausted his peremptory challenges on the first two challenges.
K.S. was accepted as an alternate and later as a regular juror after the defendant exhausted challenges; E.C. was accepted as an alternate.
The defendant argued the court forced him to use peremptory challenges on cause-should-have-been-stricken jurors, and that prosecutorial impropriety deprived him of a fair trial; the court denied relief on both grounds and the State affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of for-cause challenges was reversible	Omar	Omar	Not reviewable; no request for extra peremptory challenge.
Whether prosecutorial impropriety claims are reviewable and meritorious	State	Omar	Unreviewable as constitutional claims; evidentiary in nature, and not meritorious.

State v. Esposito, 223 Conn. 299 (1992) (reversible error when defendant forced to use challenges for cause after exhausting peremptories)
State v. Ross, 269 Conn. 213 (2004) (requires exhaustion of peremptories before challenging for cause for review)
State v. Kelly, 256 Conn. 23 (2001) (exhaust peremptories before claiming error for lack of cause challenges)
State v. Mourning, 104 Conn.App. 262 (2007) (defense statement of exhausted peremptories does not constitute a request for more challenges)
State v. Cromety, 102 Conn. App. 425 (2007) (unpreserved evidentiary claims cannot be transformed into prosecutorial impropriety claims)
State v. Rowe, 279 Conn. 139 (2006) (unpreserved evidentiary claims cannot be converted to prosecutorial impropriety claims)