eBook details
- Title: State v. Rigual
- Author : The Supreme Court of the State of Connecticut
- Release Date : January 08, 2001
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
Argued January 19, 2000 OPINION The issue in this appeal is whether the state is required to offer a nondiscriminatory reason to the court for exercising a peremptory challenge when the defendant claims the challenge is based on a prospective juror's ancestry or ethnic origin. We conclude that under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L. Ed. 2d 69 (1986), and its progeny, a prosecutor must offer a nondiscriminatory reason for removing a venireperson when a defendant raises such a claim. The following procedural history is necessary to an understanding of the issues before this court. After a jury trial on a three count substitute information, the jury found the defendant, Antonio Rigual, not guilty of attempted murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-49 (a) 2 and 53a-54a (a). 3 The jury convicted the defendant, however, of attempted assault of a peace officer in violation of General Statutes § 53a-49 and General Statutes (Rev. to 1995) § 53a-167c (a) (1), 4 as well as commission of a class A, B or C felony with a firearm in violation of General Statutes § 53-202k. 5 The defendant appealed from the judgment of conviction to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly had denied his motion to require the state to provide a nondiscriminatory reason for its peremptory challenge of a prospective juror. State v. Rigual, 49 Conn. App. 420, 422, 714 A.2d 707 (1998). The Appellate Court concluded that because the defendant, who is Hispanic, was not of the same racially cognizable group as the venireperson, who is Portuguese, the defendant could not raise a challenge under Batson. Id., 431. The Appellate Court therefore did not reach the merits of the defendant's Batson claim. Id. 6