State v. Arline
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the officially released date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the officially released date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. ELTON ARLINE (AC 17665) Foti, Hennessy and Daly, Js. Argued February 23 officially released August 15, 2000 Counsel Neal Cone, assistant public defender, for the appellant (defendant). Timothy J. Sugrue, senior assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John Connelly, state s attorney, and Gail P. Hardy, assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion DALY, J. The defendant, Elton Arline, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury trial, of possession of narcotics with intent to sell in violation of General Statutes ยง 21a-277 (a). On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his request to poll the jury upon return of the verdict. We reverse the judgment of the trial court. The following facts are relevant to this appeal. The defendant was arrested on November 29, 1996, and charged with possession of narcotics with intent to sell.1 The jury returned a verdict of guilty. After the foreman announced the jury s verdict, the defense counsel requested that the jury be polled. The court denied this request, instead instructing the courtroom clerk to read to the jury the verdict as recorded. The jury responded, Yes, to the question, So say you one, so say you all? which the clerk asked after reading the verdict. Defense counsel then renewed his request that the jurors be polled individually. The court again denied the request, noting that each of the jurors gave assent to the clerk s question. Later that day, before the jury had been discharged, the defense counsel again renewed the request that the jurors be polled individually.2 The trial court again denied this request.3 This appeal followed. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly denied his repeated requests to have the jury polled. We need look no further than State v. Pare, 253 Conn. 611, A.2d (2000), which was decided after briefs were filed and oral argument was presented in this case. In short, Pare holds that a violation of a party s timely polling request requires automatic reversal of the judgment. Id., 639. The defendant requested a poll of the jury in this case, and the trial court declined to do so. We follow State v. Pare, supra, 639, and conclude that the trial court s failure to poll requires automatic reversal. The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trial. In this opinion the other judges concurred. 1 There was also a part B information filed, charging the defendant with previously having been convicted of the crime of possession of narcotics with intent to sell. Following the defendant s conviction on the underlying charge, the state entered a nolle on the part B information. 2 The jury had not been discharged due to the possible need for it to hear evidence on the part B charge. 3 The court stated: As I read the Practice Book, counsel, I m sure you read it the same way, the key word is may. That s discretionary. It was clear that the jury assented when asked by the clerk, So say you one, so say you all?
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
