State v. Jose A. B.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant’s convictions, holding that the prosecutor’s peremptory challenges were permissible under the existing federal Batson framework and that the defendant had not proved purposeful discrimination. The court declined to decide whether the Connecticut constitution provides greater protection against peremptory challenges based on distrust of law enforcement because rulemaking addressing implicit bias and disparate impact was ongoing. It also held that the risk-of-injury convictions did not violate double jeopardy because the charged offenses contain distinct statutory elements.