State v. King

1

STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. LARISE N. KING

No. SC 20632

Supreme Court of Connecticut

August 8, 2024 ^[*]

Argued December 20, 2023

Erica A. Barber, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

Laurie N. Feldman, assistant state's attorney, with whom were David R. Applegate, state's attorney, Tatiana A. Messina senior assistant state's attorney, and, on the brief Joseph T. Corradino, state's attorney, for the appellee (state).

Procedural History

Substitute information charging the defendant with the crimes of murder as an accessory and conspiracy to commit murder, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of Fairfield and tried to a three judge court, Richards Hernandez and Dayton, Js thereafter, the court denied the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal; finding of guilty, with Richards, J., dissenting; subsequently, judgment was rendered in accordance with the verdict, from which the defendant appealed to this court.

Reversed; new trial.

Robinson, C. J., and McDonald, D'Auria, Mullins, Ecker, Dannehy and Bozzuto, Js.

OPINION

D'AURIA, J.

In Connecticut, as in all states in the union, defendants facing serious criminal charges enjoy the constitutional right to a trial by jury. See, e.g., State v. Seekins, 299 Conn. 141, 158, 8 A.3d 491 (2010). The sixth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution, and article first, §§ 8 and 19, of the Connecticut constitution^[1] reflect ''a fundamental decision about the exercise of official power-a reluctance to entrust plenary powers over the life and liberty of the citizen to one judge or to a group of judges.'' (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Langston, 346 Conn. 605, 634, 294 A.3d 1002 (2023), cert. denied, __U.S.__, 144 S.Ct. 698, 217 L.Ed.2d 391 (2024). As we have recognized, notwithstanding the silence of these constitutional provisions on the subject, the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the right to a '' 'trial by an impartial jury' '' to include the ''unmistakable'' requirement of a unanimous jury verdict before a defendant may be found guilty. State v. Douglas C., 345 Conn. 421, 435-36, 285 A.3d 1067 (2022), quoting Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U.S. 83, 89-90,140 S.Ct. 1390, 206 L.Ed.2d 583 (2020).

Defendants may, of course, waive their constitutional right to a jury trial and instead elect a trial to the court. See General Statutes § 54-82 (a).^[2] Before accepting a defendant's waiver, the trial court must find it to be undertaken knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. See, e.g., State v. Gore, 288 Conn. 770, 778, 955 A.2d 1 (2008). Most cases in which a defendant waives the right to a trial by jury result in a trial before a single judge, who rules on evidentiary and legal questions, but also finds facts and arrives at a final verdict. See 6 W. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure (4th Ed. 2015) § 24.6 (a), pp. 570-71. However, Connecticut provides a distinct alternative in one category of cases. By virtue of two statutory provisions, when a defendant charged with any crime punishable by life imprisonment, with or without the possibility of release, elects a court trial, ''the court shall be composed of three judges ....

Such judges, or a majority of them, shall have power to decide all questions of law and fact arising upon the trial and render judgment accordingly.'' General Statutes § 54-82 (b); see also General Statutes § 53a-45 (b). Our research and that of the parties have found these statutes to be unique among the fifty states, not only because they expand the traditional court trial from a single judge to a panel of three judges but because they require only two of the three judges to arrive at a verdict and to render judgment.^[3] These provisions depart from the requirement of a unanimous verdict, which is a hallmark of the right to a criminal jury trial in Connecticut and throughout the nation. See State v. Douglas C., supra, 345 Conn. 435-36.

In the present case, the defendant, Larise N. King, waived her right to a jury trial and elected to be tried to a three judge court, Richards, Hernandez and Dayton, Js., on charges of murder as an accessory in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-8 and 53a-54a, and conspiracy to commit murder in violation of General Statutes §§ 53a-48 and 53a-54a. Two members of the court, Hernandez and Dayton, Js., found the defendant guilty on both counts and rendered judgment accordingly. The third member of the court, Richards, J., dissented and instead would have found the defendant guilty of accessory to manslaughter in the first degree as a lesser included offense of the crime of murder and conspiracy to commit assault in the first degree as a lesser included offense of the crime of conspiracy to commit murder.

The defendant now appeals, arguing that (1) there was insufficient evidence to support the judgment of conviction, (2) the failure of the trial court, Russo, J.,^[4]to explain that the three judge panel did not have to reach a unanimous decision rendered her jury trial waiver involuntary and, thus, unconstitutional, and (3) three judge panels should be prohibited from deliberating until the close of evidence and the submission of the case to the panel, which, the defendant claims, improperly occurred in the present case. Although we conclude that sufficient evidence supported the majority's guilty verdict, we invoke our supervisory authority over the administration of justice and hold that trial courts must canvass defendants who choose to be tried before a three judge panel, rather than before a jury, to ensure that they understand that, although a jury of their peers must be unanimous in reaching a guilty verdict, a three judge panel can properly arrive at a guilty verdict after a decision by a majority vote. The failure of the canvassing court in the present case to explain that critical difference to the defendant requires that we reverse her conviction and remand the case for a new trial. Finally, because the issue may arise at a retrial, we also hold that a three judge panel is not constitutionally prohibited from beginning its deliberations prior to the close of evidence and the submission of the case to the panel because, although judges are not immune from the frailties of human nature, they are held to a higher standard and serve a different role as compared with jurors.

I

The pertinent facts found by the three judge panel, along with the relevant procedural history, can be summarized as follows. The defendant married the victim, Dathan Gray, in 2016. Numerous family members testified that the couple's relationship had been turbulent from the beginning of the marriage. The defendant and Gray separated approximately two years later.

At the time of the murder, the defendant and Gray were both dating other people, and their relationship remained volatile. They often fought via Facebook. Notably, six months before the events in question, the defendant streamed live on Facebook with a message for Gray. In the video, the defendant stated that she would ''kick [Gray's] ass'' whenever she saw him and that ''whatever my family do to you is beyond me .... They tired of you.''

On the night of July 26, 2019, Gray was working a shift at The Snack Shack in Bridgeport. At about 11:17 p.m., Gray's supervisor called the defendant and asked her to come to the store and ''take care of'' Gray, who was ''drunk'' and ''acting up ....'' The defendant's best friend, Janice Rondon, drove the defendant to The Snack Shack. Once there Rondon initially stayed in the car while the defendant and Gray talked outside of his apartment, which was directly across the street from The Snack Shack. After some time, Rondon got out of the car and approached the defendant and Gray. When Rondon approached, Gray stated: ''Why the fuck you over here? Mind your own fucking business, bitch.'' Gray tried to spit on Rondon, and Rondon spat back at him, triggering an argument and a physical fight between the defendant and Gray. Onlookers, including numerous friends and acquaintances of the defendant and Gray, remembered there having been a ''commotion,'' with punches thrown and the defendant and Gray rolling on the ground. Nosadee Sampson, a longtime friend of the defendant and Gray, recalled the defendant having told Gray that he was ''going to breathe his last breath.'' Michael Edwards, the defendant's boyfriend at the time, deescalated the situation by separating the defendant from Gray.

At about 1 a.m. on July 27, 2019, Gray and his girlfriend at the time, Sakeryial Beverly, were talking on the sidewalk down the street from The Snack Shack. Sampson, who was standing next to Beverly, saw two men wearing hoodies approach, which struck her as odd because of how hot it was that night. She shouted to Gray that the men wearing hoodies were approaching him, but the men quickly pushed Beverly to the side and shot Gray in the face. Bridgeport's ''Shot Spotter'' system registered sixteen gunshots in the area at approximately 1:13 a.m. Forensic and medical reports indicate that Gray had sustained eleven gunshot wounds and four graze gunshot wounds. Doctors pronounced Gray dead shortly after his arrival at Bridgeport Hospital.

Sampson could not see what the men wearing hoodies looked like, remembering only that one was taller than the other. She saw the men exchange words with Gray but did not hear the conversation. Sampson testified that the defendant was not one of the shooters.

Sampson also testified that the defendant was wearing a light colored shirt, striped pants, and a printed scarf on the night of the murder. The defendant admitted this when interviewed by the police. Upon reviewing surveillance video of the area, police officers noticed that, at...