Posts tagged with "evidentiary hearing"

Defendant’s Juror Misconduct Claim Rejected; Lower Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion with Extent of Inquiry

Case Background

Essentially, the defendant claimed that a juror, T, did not believe there was enough evidence that the defendant committed assault. However, T changed his vote to guilty after another juror threatened to hang the jury on an attempted murder charge. The court held an evidentiary hearing, asking questions “which mainly focused on T’s recollection and awareness of the instructions on legal principles that had been given to the jurors prior to their deliberations.” T responded in the affirmative when asked these questions.

Memorandum Issued

Thereafter, the court issued a memorandum that rejected the defendant’s claim of jury misconduct. It explained, in essence, it is only the final and formal conclusion that is considered, not a juror’s prior, private intentions:

Connecticut courts have consistently found that the expressions and arguments of jurors in their deliberations and evidence as to their own motives, beliefs, mistakes and mental operations in arriving at a verdict are to be considered immaterial in claims of juror misconduct. To do otherwise would violate the sanctity of the juror process. …

Court’s Ruling

It is the burden of the defendant to prove actual juror bias and misconduct that resulted in actual prejudice, where the trial court was not responsible. In this case, the defendant argued that the court’s inquiry was not sufficient because “the court did not ask the juror if he recalled the court’s instruction prohibiting consideration of punishment or the consequences of their verdict.”

The Appellate Court concluded that the court’s inquiry into whether juror misconduct occurred “was tailored properly to ascertaining this fact.” It noted that T confirmed that he recalled the relevant instructions given by the court before deliberations began. The court found no need to proceed any further, and to do so would constitute an abuse of discretion. “That the verdict may have been the result of compromise, or a mistake on part of the jury, is possible. But verdicts cannot be upset by speculation or inquiry into such matters.” Therefore, this part of the defendant’s appeal was denied.

Written by Lindsay E. Raber, Esq.

–

Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

Informant’s Statements in 911 Tapes Constituted “Spontaneous Utterances;” Admission in DUI Case Was Not Harmful Error

Case Details

On the date of the incident in question, a citizen informant called police to report a person, later identified as the defendant, he believed was driving under the influence. The informant provided information describing the car’s appearance, location, and direction of travel. When he crossed paths with a police officer, the informant conveyed this to the dispatcher, and the officer confirmed this statement. Before the officer initiated a traffic stop, he asked whether the informant was identifiable, though the dispatcher stated it was obtaining the information at that time.

The defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence (OMVUI) in violation of General Statutes § 14-227a. At an evidentiary hearing, prosecutors sought to admit into evidence the 911 call between the informant and dispatcher, but the defendant objected, arguing it was inadmissible testimonial hearsay. The court overruled the objection, stating the 911 call was admissible under the business record exception to the rule against hearsay. The defendant entered a conditional plea of nolo contendere and then appealed, arguing, in part, that admission of the 911 tape constituted harmful error.

Admission of “Hearsay” Statements

“Hearsay” is an out-of-court statement offered for the truth of the matter asserted. It is generally inadmissible unless it falls under one of the limited exceptions, including business records. To be admitted under this exception, the record must meet three conditions: 1) the record was made “in the regular course of business;” 2) it was “the regular course of such business to make such a record;” and 3) the record was made “at the time of the act described in the report, or within a reasonable time thereafter.”

However, in a previous case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut admonished a trial court’s decision to use the business records exception to admit a police report containing the hearsay statement of an anonymous informant. It noted that because citizens do not have a duty to report, “a recorded statement by a citizen must satisfy a separate hearsay exception.”

Eighteen years later, however, the Supreme Court of Connecticut concluded that a complainant’s statements in a 911 call were “admissible as spontaneous utterances pursuant to § 8-3 (2) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence.” This exception applies where: “(1) the declaration follows a startling occurrence, (2) the declaration refers to the occurrence, (3) the declarant observed the occurrence, and (4) the declaration is made under circumstances that negate the opportunity for deliberation and fabrication by the declarant.”

The Court’s Decision

In this case, the Appellate Court determined that all four conditions were satisfied: the informant was startled by the defendant’s erratic driving, relayed to dispatch what he personally observed “in the course of an ongoing urgent situation.” This lessened the likelihood that the informant contrived and misrepresented what he saw. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the 911 tapes.

–

When faced with a charge of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (a.k.a. driving under the influence), an individual is best served by consulting with an experienced criminal law practitioner. Should you have any questions regarding criminal defense, please do not hesitate to contact Attorney Joseph C. Maya in the firm’s Westport office in Fairfield County at 203-221-3100 or at JMaya@Mayalaw.com.