State v. Tarver
2016 Conn. App. LEXIS 267
Conn. App. Ct.2016Background
- Defendant Tyrone Tarver was convicted by a jury of felony murder, first‑degree robbery, and conspiracy to commit third‑degree robbery for a 2009 robbery that resulted in the victim being shot and killed; evidence included witness testimony and cell‑phone/tower data placing defendant at the scene.
- Jury selection occurred over several days; venireperson E.A. was selected as a regular juror but left the jury assembly room on the morning trial was to begin, reportedly because she had the flu.
- A courthouse staff member apparently permitted E.A. to leave before the judge authorized her excusal; the judge later announced on the record that, after hearing from counsel, he would follow the statutory procedure and replace her with an alternate.
- Defendant claimed on appeal that the off‑record release and subsequent excusal violated Conn. Gen. Stat. § 54‑82h(c) and his constitutional rights (presence, public trial, individualized voir dire, due process).
- Separately, the defendant moved in limine to exclude evidence of a 2007 robbery conviction; the court held the motion in abeyance, and during trial a witness (Johnson) twice volunteered references to the defendant’s prior robbery/jail status; the court struck the statements, admonished the witness, gave curative instructions, and denied two mistrial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Tarver) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether excusal of juror E.A. violated § 54‑82h(c) | Court properly exercised discretion to excuse ill juror and replace by lot after hearing counsel | E.A. was improperly excused off‑record by unidentified person; court failed to independently determine cause and denied notice/hearing | Court: No violation — judge made on‑the‑record decision after counsel heard; illness is cause; substitution lawful |
| Whether excusal violated defendant’s constitutional rights (presence, public trial, voir dire, due process) | Court procedure did not implicate constitutional rights; statute and case law govern alternates | Off‑record dismissal deprived Tarver of critical stage and constitutional protections; presumed prejudice | Unpreserved claim fails Golding prong two — not of constitutional magnitude; no reviewable constitutional violation |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by holding motion in limine in abeyance rather than precluding prior robbery evidence | Reserving decision was proper where state said it wouldn’t introduce conviction in case‑in‑chief and court would address problems if they arose | Court should have proactively barred witness from mentioning prior conviction given foreseeability from probable‑cause hearing | No abuse of discretion — court properly reserved decision under Practice Book and warned parties to object if issue arose |
| Whether denial of mistrial after witness volunteered prior conviction/jail was abuse of discretion | Court’s prompt strikes, admonitions, and curative instructions cured prejudice; evidence against defendant was strong | Witness volunteered prejudicial prior‑conviction detail; mistrial required because curative instruction insufficient | No abuse of discretion — curative instructions and overall record rebut prejudice; mistrial unnecessary |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Apodaca, 303 Conn. 378 (court can excuse ill juror; excusal not an abuse where illness, contagiousness, and delay risk were articulated)
- State v. Gonzalez, 315 Conn. 564 (illness may constitute cause to excuse juror under § 54‑82h[c])
- State v. Walton, 41 Conn. App. 831 (violation of § 54‑82h[c] does not automatically implicate constitutional rights; defendant must show harm)
- State v. LaBrec, 270 Conn. 548 (alternate juror selection/dismissal procedures generally do not implicate constitutional rights)
- State v. Nash, 278 Conn. 620 (curative instruction can cure unsolicited references to prior contact with police or criminal history; mistrial not required absent showing curative instruction insufficient)