See, e.g., State v. King , 249 Conn. 645, 664–67, 735 A.2d 267 (1999). We conclude that the challenged line of cases, on which the Appellate Court relied in upholding the defendant's conviction of felony murder on the basis of its rejection of his Batson claim arising from the prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge during jury selection; see State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 175–77, 169 A.3d 264 (2017) ; remains consistent with the federal constitutional case law that provides the sole basis for the Batson claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court in this case but refer the systemic concerns about Batson 's failure to address the effects of implicit bias and disparate impact to a Jury Selection Task Force, appointed by the Chief Justice, to consider measures intended to promote the selection of diverse jury panels in our state's courthouses.
In the defendant's unsuccessful direct appeal from his conviction, this court recited the following facts. See State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 159–61, 169 A.3d 264, cert. granted, 327 Conn. 984, 175 A.3d 561 (2017). Early in the morning of November 12, 2011, the defendant went to a club with friends, including Davion Smith. Id., at 159–60, 169 A.3d 264. Outside the club, the defendant was involved in a fight with other party guests, including Todd Silva.
The following factual scenario, which the jury reasonably could have found, is gleaned from the opinion of this court in the defendant's direct appeal affirming the judgment of conviction. See State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 169 A.3d 264 (2017), aff'd, 334 Conn. 202, 221 A.3d 407 (2019). At 4 a.m. on November 12, 2011, the defendant and another man forced entry into an apartment occupied by Todd Silva, with whom the defendant had a fight previously, and the victim, Jorge Rosa.
"[T]here is a distinction between a defendant who remains silent after he is arrested and advised of his rights, and a defendant who, after being given Miranda warnings, chooses to forgo such rights." State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 190–91, 169 A.3d 264 (2017). In the absence of an objection at trial, the defendant argues that he is entitled to review of his Doyle claim on appeal pursuant to State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R. , 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015).
See, e.g., State v. Toro , supra, 172 Conn. App. at 820, 162 A.3d 63 ; State v. Baker , 168 Conn. App. 19, 37, 145 A.3d 955, cert. denied, 323 Conn. 932, 150 A.3d 232 (2016). Recently, in State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 183, 169 A.3d 264 (2017), this court deemed the appellant's claim abandoned, where he failed to brief the harm suffered from an evidentiary ruling that he claimed was erroneous.Unless these Appellate Court rulings are overturned en banc, they are binding on us. State v. Ortiz , 133 Conn. App. 118, 122, 33 A.3d 862 (2012), aff'd, 312 Conn. 551, 93 A.3d 1128 (2014).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmes , supra, 334 Conn. at 245, 221 A.3d 407 ; see also State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 192–93, 169 A.3d 264 (2017) (Lavine , J. , concurring) (urging reform of Batson procedures "because this case brings into sharp relief a serious flaw in the way Batson has been, and can be, applied," which "must be remedied if the jury selection process is to attain the goal of producing juries representing all of the communities in our state and gaining their confidence and trust"), aff'd, 334 Conn. 202, 221 A.3d 407 (2019). We then announced the creation of the Task Force, to be appointed by the Chief Justice; State v. Holmes , supra, 334 Conn. at 250, 221 A.3d 407 ; anticipating that it would "propose meaningful changes to be implemented via court rule or legislation, including, but not limited to (1) proposing any necessary changes to General Statutes § 51-232 (c), which governs the confirmation form and questionnaire provided to prospective jurors, (2) improving the process by which we summon prospective jurors in order to ensure that venires are drawn from a fair cross section of the community that is repr
Paul J. Narducci, senior assistant state's attorney, in opposition.The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 176 Conn. App. 156, 169 A.3d 264 (2017), is granted, limited to the following issue:"Did the Appellate Court err in determining that the trial court properly denied the defendant's challenge under Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 96–98, 106 S. Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed. 2d 69 (1986) ?"
Where a party cites no law and provides no analysis in support of a claim, we decline to review it. State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 185, 169 A.3d 264 (2017), aff'd, 334 Conn. 202, 221 A.3d 407 (2019). We therefore do not address the defendant's claims concerning whether he was reasonably accommodated or that the court's findings were the result of implicit bias.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 185, 169 A.3d 264 (2017), aff'd, 334 Conn. 202, 221 A.3d 407 (2019). In the context of the failure of a party adequately to brief how a challenged evidentiary ruling was harmful, this court, on multiple occasions, has declined to review a claim of error related to such ruling.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Holmes , 176 Conn. App. 156, 189–90, 169 A.3d 264, cert. granted on other grounds, 327 Conn. 984, 175 A.3d 561 (2017) ; see also State v. Ramos , 178 Conn. App. 400, 408–409, 175 A.3d 1265 (2017), cert. denied, 327 Conn. 1003, 176 A.3d 1195 (2018). "A Doyle violation also encompasses a prosecutor's comment upon a defendant's statement requesting an attorney.... With respect to post- Miranda warning ... silence does not mean only muteness; it includes the statement of a desire to remain silent, as well as of a desire to remain silent until an attorney has been consulted."