STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. CARLOS GOMEZ, SC 21025

Judicial District of New Haven

Criminal; Jury Instructions; Unanimous Verdicts; Duplicitous Counts; Whether the Trial Court Violated the Defendant's Right to a Unanimous Verdict by Not Requiring Special Interrogatories on Duplicitous Counts. The defendant was charged with multiple counts of first-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a child after allegedly abusing two children who attended a daycare in his home. Each count of sexual assault alleged that the defendant committed a specific sexual act with a specific child. For each count, the victim testified at trial that the defendant committed the underlying sexual act on multiple occasions. The trial court held a charging conference and asked in court whether counsel wished to put anything related to the conference on the record. The defendant made no requests for jury instructions and did not object to the trial court's jury instructions. For each count, the trial court instructed the jury using language identical or almost identical to the following: "The State has offered evidence that the defendant engaged in the conduct charged in [this count] on more than one occasion. You may find the defendant guilty of this offense only if you all unanimously agree as to at least one of the instances the defendant committed the offense." The jury convicted the defendant on all counts, and the trial court sentenced the defendant to twenty-five years of incarceration, suspended after twenty-one years, followed by ten years of probation. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (b) (3). On appeal, the defendant claims that the verdict on each count of sexual assault violated his right to a unanimous verdict under the sixth amendment to the United States constitution because each count could refer to multiple instances, and the verdict does not indicate what instance or instances the jury agreed on unanimously. Although the defendant failed to preserve this claim because he did not raise it at trial, he asserts that it is a constitutional claim with a sufficient record for review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989). The defendant contends that because he cannot identify what instance or instances the jury relied on to arrive at its verdict, he is unable to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence for his convictions. Although the defendant acknowledges that the trial court's jury instructions were appropriate, he argues that they were insufficient because they failed to guarantee that the jury followed the unanimity instructions. The defendant argues that to cure a duplicitous count, the trial court was required to instruct the jury to answer specific interrogatories, both to provide the jury's factual findings on each relevant instance of conduct and to ensure the jury's unanimity. The defendant requests that the Supreme Court reverse his conviction on the relevant counts and remand the matter to the trial court with an order on the merits with the use of interrogatories to cure the duplicitous counts charged.