January 18, 2019
information charging the defendant with the crime of murder,
brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New
London, where the court, Jongbloed, J., denied the
defendant's motions to strike the jury panel and to
suppress certain evidence; thereafter, the case was tried to
the jury; verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the
defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, Beach, Keller and
Norcott, Js., which affirmed the judgment of the trial court,
and the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed
to this court. Appeal dismissed.
Kenneth Rosenthal, with whom, on the brief, was Allison M.
Near, for the appellant (defendant).
Weller, senior assistant state's attorney, with whom, on
the brief, were Michael L. Regan, state's attorney, and
David J. Smith, supervisory assistant state's attorney,
for the appellee (state).
Christine Perra Rapillo, chief public defender, and Ann M.
Parrent, assistant public defender, filed a brief for the
Office of the Chief Public Defender as amicus curiae.
Robinson, C. J., and Palmer, McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins
and Kahn, Js.
defendant, Darnell Moore, appeals, upon our grant of his
petition for certification, from the judgment of the Appellate
Court affirming his conviction, rendered after a jury trial,
of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a.
State v. Moore, 169 Conn.App. 470, 473, 151 A.3d 412
(2016). On appeal, the defendant challenges the Appellate
Court's conclusion that the trial court properly denied
his motion to strike the voir dire panel on the ground that
he failed to provide any statistical analysis or data to
prove that the lack of African-American males on that panel
rendered it not a fair cross section of the New London
judicial district from which it was drawn, in violation of
the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. See
Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 364, 99 S.Ct. 664,
58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979); State v. Gibbs, 254 Conn.
578, 588, 758 A.2d 327 (2000). The defendant contends
specifically that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined
that the census data he proffered about the percentage of
all African-Americans in the population of both
Connecticut as a whole and the New London judicial district
specifically did not constitute probative evidence with
respect to the inquiry at issue, which was limited to the
percentage of African-American males eligible for
jury service, because, ‘‘[w]ithout an ability to
rely on census data, [he] had no recourse as to how he might
demonstrate a fair cross section claim.'' The
defendant also argues that the Appellate Court improperly
declined to exercise its supervisory power over the
administration of justice to further the purpose of General
Statutes § 51-232 (c) by requiring the jury administrator to
collect and maintain racial and demographic data for all
jurors because, ‘‘without that information, there
is no mechanism by which . . . any defendant can effectively
present evidence of the number of distinctive group members
in the jury pool for the pertinent judicial
examining the entire record on appeal and considering the
briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined
that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the
ground that certification was improvidently granted.
dismissing the appeal, however, we offer an additional
observation with respect to the defendant's request,
supported by the amicus curiae Office of the Chief Public
Defender, to exercise our supervisory authority over the
administration of justice to enhance the diversity of our
state's juries by requiring the jury administrator to
collect racial and demographic information about prospective
jurors, including by (1) amending the juror questionnaire to
mandate the inclusion of racial and ethnic background, rather
than the current practice under § 51-232 (c) of making
the provision of such information voluntary, which might skew
the data collected, and (2) maintaining statistical
information based on that data prior to the destruction of
the questionnaires in accordance with Judicial Branch policy
intended to protect juror confidentiality. See, e.g.,
Barlow v. Commissioner of Correction, 328
Conn. 610, 612-15, 182 A.3d 78 (2018) (providing additional
explanation in dismissing appeal as improvidently granted).
As we noted in State v. Raynor, 334 Conn.,, A.3d
(2019), a companion case raising similar issues in the
context of claims under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S.
79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), the fact that the
legislature has acted in this area by enacting § 51-232
(c)-which specifically makes the provision of racial and
ethnic data optional for the juror-renders us reluctant to
exercise our supervisory authority in the sweeping manner
sought by the defendant and the amicus curiae Office of the
Chief Public Defender. Instead, we anticipate these issues
will be considered by the Jury Selection Task Force, which
the Chief Justice will appoint pursuant to our decision in
State v. Holmes, 334 Conn.,, A.3d (2019), to suggest
those changes to court policies, rules, and legislation
necessary to ensure that our state court juries are
representative of Connecticut's diverse population.
appeal is dismissed.