More Categories

Section 54-82 – Accused’s election of trial by court or by jury. Number of jurors

May 11, 2021 | Connecticut, Criminal Procedure

(a) In any criminal case, prosecution or proceeding, the accused may, if the accused so elects when called upon to plead, be tried by the court instead of by the jury; and, in such case, the court shall have jurisdiction to hear and try such case and render judgment and sentence thereon.
(b) If the accused is charged with a crime punishable by death, life imprisonment without the possibility of release or life imprisonment and elects to be tried by the court, the court shall be composed of three judges to be designated by the Chief Court Administrator, or the Chief Court Administrator’s designee, who shall name one such judge to preside over the trial. Such judges, or a majority of them, shall have power to decide all questions of law and fact arising upon the trial and render judgment accordingly.
(c) If the accused does not elect to be tried by the court, the accused shall be tried by a jury of six except that no person charged with an offense which is punishable by death, life imprisonment without the possibility of release or life imprisonment, shall be tried by a jury of less than twelve without such person’s consent.

Conn. Gen. Stat. ยง 54-82

(1949 Rev., S. 8797; 1953, S. 3326d; 1967, P.A. 656, S. 62; P.A. 73-576, S. 3, 4; 73-616, S. 41, 67; P.A. 76-336, S. 4; P.A. 77-474, S. 1, 2; P.A. 80-313, S. 36; P.A. 81-47; P.A. 12-5, S. 26.)

Amended by P.A. 12-0005, S. 26 of the the 2012 Regular Session, eff. 4/25/2012.

Application by accused for leave to withdraw election made under statute is addressed to court’s discretion; refusal to permit withdrawal held no error. 102 C. 51. The court’s determination of guilt or innocence upon the evidence should be raised on appeal by an assignment of error; not necessary to make a motion to set aside verdict. 105 C. 332; 109 C. 126; 110 C. 552. Court fulfills function of jury; its additional power under statute does not authorize convicting of robbery a defendant charged with murder. 132 C. 43. Cited. 142 C. 114. It is not violative of the constitutional guarantee of the right to a jury trial for the legislature to enact a statute which changes the form of jury procedure if it still maintainsthe substance of the institution. 144 C. 228. Insofar as it provides that an accused shall be tried to a jury of 6 unless at the time he is put to plea he demands a jury of 12, it does not deprive any defendant of his right of trial by jury. Id., 230. Cited. 146 Conn. 78; 147 C. 95; 153 C. 328; 161 C. 413. Since determination of jury size is not a matter presently or historically lying exclusively within control of the judiciary, section, which regulates size of criminal juries, does not violate separation of powers clause of Connecticut Constitution. 171 Conn. 395. Cited. 173 Conn. 450; 174 C. 22; 176 C. 224; 182 C. 353; 190 C. 639; 191 C. 506; 197 Conn. 247; 198 C. 77; 223 C. 384; 227 C. 448; 231 C. 235. Death penalty unconstitutional under Art. I, Secs. 8 and 9 of Connecticut Constitution. 318 Conn. 1. Cited. 34 Conn.App. 58; judgment reversed, see 232 Conn. 537; 41 CA 361; Id., 831. 3-judge court not required to deliberate with respect to all charges when only one charge carried maximum penalty of death or life in prison. 69 CA 267. Cited. 33 CS 739; 34 CS 674; 39 Conn.Supp. 347. Accused cannot postpone trial of his case indefinitely by repeatedly changing his election concerning trial by jury. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 218, 222, 223. Subsec. (b): Cited. 184 C. 455; 201 Conn. 534; 203 C. 4. Defendant’s decision to forgo a jury determination in capital felony sentencing proceeding and opt for sentencing by a 3-judge panel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent; formulaic canvass of defendant is not required and validity of jury waiver is determined by examination of totality of the circumstances. 303 C. 71. Cited. 13 CA 667; 22 CA 265. Court’s instruction to defendant that he could not change his decision to waive his right to a jury trial simply because he had rethought his position was not legally inaccurate or in contradiction of the provisions of section. 120 CA 768.