The state appealed to this court, with the trial court's permission, from the action of that court setting aside a verdict that the defendant was guilty of the crime of murder, arresting a verdict that he was guilty of attempted manslaughter, and ordering a new trial. This court remanded the matter to the trial court for further articulation because that court's findings on the issue of actual juror bias were incomplete. On reargument of the matter to this court following the trial court's articulation, held that that court applied the correct legal standard in finding actual bias on the part of a juror.
(One judge dissenting)
DANNEHY, J.
This is the second appeal of this case to this court. The material facts are stated in State v. Almeda, 189 Conn. 303, 455 A.2d 1326 (1983). On the last appeal we remanded the case for further articulation because the trial court's findings on the issue of actual juror bias were incomplete. Id., 314. The scope of the remand required that the trial court make an explicit finding of the ultimate fact to be proved, actual bias on the part of a juror.
The trial court, Hendel, J., made findings of fact after remand similar to those found prior to the first appeal. On the basis of those facts, the trial court, in its further articulation, found actual bias upon the part of a juror. On remand, the trial court abandoned any reliance on Mares v. State, 83 N.M. 225, 490 P.2d 667 (1971), and applied the correct legal standard in finding actual bias on the part of a juror. State v. Almeda, supra, 312-13.
CALLAHAN, J., dissenting.
I respectfully dissent. I see nothing in the record which could reasonably result in a finding of actual bias on the part of the juror by the trial judge.