State v. Scott, 158 Conn.App. 809

Defendant Jermaine T. Scott was charged with murder (count one) and criminal possession of a firearm as a felon (count two). Trial began with jury selection; defendant sought a court (bench) trial on count two only.
On the record, the trial court personally canvassed Scott about waiving his right to a jury for count two; Scott confirmed he consulted counsel, understood the waiver, and voluntarily elected a court trial.
The jury returned a not guilty verdict on the murder charge; the court then tried count two and found Scott guilty of criminal possession of a firearm.
Scott appealed, arguing his jury-trial waiver was not knowing and intelligent because the canvass did not (1) specify the number of jurors, (2) mention jury unanimity, or (3) probe his education/work/jury experience.
The trial court relied on the colloquy and Scott’s representation by counsel; the Appellate Court reviewed under Golding and applied the Gore canvass requirements and totality-of-the-circumstances standard.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Scott’s on-the-record waiver of a jury trial for one count was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary	State: waiver was valid because court personally canvassed defendant, who was represented and repeatedly affirmed understanding and voluntariness	Scott: canvass was inadequate because it omitted number of jurors, unanimity requirement, and inquiry into his education/experience	Waiver valid under totality-of-the-circumstances; conviction affirmed
Whether appellate court should exercise supervisory authority to require a uniform, more detailed canvass procedure	State: traditional constitutional and procedural protections suffice; no need for new supervisory rule	Scott: courts inconsistent; supervisory rule should mandate specific canvass items (e.g., juror number, unanimity)	Declined to invoke supervisory authority; existing protections adequate

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (Conn. 1989) (standard for raising unpreserved constitutional claims on appeal)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938) (waiver of constitutional right must be knowing and intelligent)
State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770 (Conn. 2008) (defendant must personally and affirmatively waive jury trial; trial court should briefly canvass absent written waiver)
State v. Rizzo, 303 Conn. 71 (Conn. 2012) (totality-of-the-circumstances governs waiver; canvass need not be formulaic)
State v. Woods, 297 Conn. 569 (Conn. 2010) (consider defendant’s background and responses when assessing waiver)
State v. Tocco, 120 Conn. App. 768 (Conn. App. 2010) (representation by counsel and consultation support validity of waiver)
State v. Jeremy D., 149 Conn. App. 583 (Conn. App. 2014) (colloquy showing clear, intelligible responses supports waiver)
State v. Altayeb, 126 Conn. App. 383 (Conn. App. 2011) (example where court discussed education/life experience during canvass)
State v. Smith, 100 Conn. App. 313 (Conn. App. 2007) (defendant’s criminal history can show familiarity with court proceedings)
State v. Edwards, 314 Conn. 465 (Conn. 2014) (explaining limited, sparing use of appellate supervisory authority)