Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Outlaw — concurring
August 6, 2024350 Conn. 251
Summary
The concurring opinion agrees that the trial court should have conducted a more substantial inquiry after observing a juror apparently sleeping for about an hour, but concludes that the omission did not make the trial fundamentally unfair or manifestly unjust. It therefore agrees with the judgment and with the majority's resolution of the other appellate issues. Justice McDonald, concurring in part and dissenting in part, would have treated the inadequate inquiry into the sleeping juror as requiring reversal, while Justice Ecker, joined by the Chief Justice, concurs in the result on a narrower ground.