Argued
January 16, 2019
Superior
Court, Judicial District of Hartford, Edward J. Mullarkey, J.
Alice
Osedach, assistant public defender, for the appellant
(defendant).
Timothy
J. Sugrue, assistant states attorney, with whom, on the
brief, were Gail P. Hardy, states attorney, and David L.
Zagaja, senior assistant states attorney, for the appellee
(state).
Robinson,
C.J., and Palmer, McDonald, DAuria, Kahn, Ecker and
Vertefeuille, Js.
OPINION
PER
CURIAM.
Page 402
[334
Conn. 266] The defendant, James Raynor, appeals, upon our
grant of his petition for certification,[1] from the judgment of
the Appellate Court affirming his conviction, rendered after
a jury trial, of assault in the first degree as an accessory
in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-59 (a) (5) and
53a-8, and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree
in violation of General Statutes § § 53a-59 (a) (5) and
53a-48. State v. Raynor, 175 Conn.App. 409, 412-13,
167 A.3d 1076 (2017). On appeal, the defendant claims that
the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that that the
record was inadequate to review his challenge under
Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90
L.Ed.2d 69 (1986), to the prosecutors exercise of a
peremptory challenge on prospective juror R.E.[2] on the basis
of his employment [334 Conn. 267] history, even though the
record does not indicate the race or ethnicity of both R.E.
and one of the two jurors, I.L. and G.H., whom the defendant
highlighted as examples of disparate treatment by the
prosecutor. In response, the state disagrees and also
proffers, as an alternative ground for affirmance, that the
trial court did not commit clear error in finding that the
prosecutor did not engage in purposeful discrimination when
he peremptorily challenged R.E. We affirm the judgment of the
Appellate Court.
The
Appellate Courts opinion sets forth the following relevant
facts and procedural history. "Jury selection occurred
over the course of two days, October 30 and 31, 2014. On the
first day of jury selection, the parties conducted voir dire
of a prospective juror, R.E. Prior to defense counsels
questioning of R.E., the court inquired as to whether R.E.
would suffer any financial hardship by participating in jury
duty. In response, R.E. initially informed the court that,
although he worked part-time, his shift began at 4:30 p.m.
and ... his job was within walking distance of the
courthouse. The court then asked R.E. to contact his employer
to determine whether he would be compensated for any work he
missed or, alternatively, whether he would be able to begin
his shift after 5 p.m. After speaking with his employer, R.E.
stated that, if he were selected to serve, he would be able
to start his shifts after the court had adjourned for the
day, and thus he had no financial concerns about being
selected as a juror.
"Thereafter, defense counsel questioned R.E. as to
whether he could keep an open
Page 403
mind, determine which witnesses were credible, follow the
courts instructions on the law, and engage in a free
exchange of ideas with his fellow jurors during
deliberations. R.E. answered in the affirmative to each of
these questions. Thereafter, the following colloquy occurred
during the prosecutors voir dire of R.E.:
[334 Conn. 268] " [The Prosecutor]: ... Youre from
Hartford?
" [R.E.]: Yes.
" [The Prosecutor]: You havent heard anything about
this incident—
" [R.E.]: No, sir.
" [The Prosecutor]: — which was presented to
you? None of the names that were listed to you sounded
familiar—
" [R.E.]: No, sir.
" [The Prosecutor]: — anything like that? So,
youre [employed] at Easter Seals. Youve been there for
how long? You said about four years?
" [R.E.]: Four years.
* * *
" [The Prosecutor]: Have you ever had anyone close to
you, friends, family members, anyone like that, that has
been the victim of a crime?
" [R.E.]: No, sir.
" [The Prosecutor]: And if you were to hear
information about drugs within this trial, do you think you
could still consider that information and make your
decisions or would you be turned off by that?
" [R.E.]: I could still make my decision.
" [The Prosecutor]: Okay. Still be open-minded and
consider all the information—
" [R.E.]: Yes.
" [The Prosecutor]: — presented?
" [R.E.]: Yes, sir.
[334 Conn. 269] " [The Prosecutor]: Is there anything
either of us have left out that you think would—
would be important to tell us about your ability to sit
here as a juror?
" [R.E.]: No, sir.
" [The Prosecutor]: Great. Thanks for your time.
"Thereafter, R.E. exited the courtroom, and the
following colloquy occurred:
" [Defense Counsel]: Accepted.
" [The Prosecutor]: Excused.
" [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, I would ask for a
gender or a race neutral explanation or basis.
" [The Prosecutor]: Should I give one?
" [The Court]: Yes.
" [The Prosecutor]: It would be his employment
history, Your Honor, and just basically his sense of
security. I do have concerns also that hes from Hartford,
although he did indicate that he knew nothing about the
offense.
" [Defense Counsel]: Your Honor, if I may. We have
two Caucasian women on the panel at this point in time. He
answered all the questions, in my view at least, and I
think counsel would agree, honestly. He didnt express any
reservations about security. Being from Hartford is not a
bar to be in this case. He did not express any familiarity
with the case. I think he answered all the questions right.
I think hes got a right to serve on this panel.
" [The Prosecutor]: I think I presented a race
...