Law360 (September 3, 2026, 4:48 PM EDT) -- The Connecticut Supreme Court on Thursday upheld a guilty verdict in an attempted murder case despite one juror's comment that the top charge left her feeling "a little guilty," with the justices characterizing the phrase as an indication of the juror's "strong and unsettling emotions," not her "uncertainty or equivocation."

In a unanimous opinion penned by Justice Steven D. Ecker, the high court also urged trial judges to be cautious about discussing the merits of cases with jurors. After being discharged, the juror made the comment when Judge Patricia A. Swords went to an assembly room to thank the panel for its service and answer questions about the trial or the court system in general, Justice Ecker said.

Defendant Angel M. Alvarez argued Judge Swords' failure to immediately disclose the comment violated his right to poll the jury under Section 42-31 of the Connecticut Practice Book, the state's compilation of court rules.

The justices disagreed, saying any poll taken after discharge would not have been accurate. For instance, the jurors could have communicated with others via cellphone between the time Judge Swords released them from their oaths and when the comment was made, Justice Ecker said.

"Because even simple and seemingly innocuous interactions with an outsider can influence a juror's views about a case, the postverdict, ex parte communication between the trial judge and the jury calls into doubt the reliability of any jury poll conducted afterward," Justice Ecker observed.

In the jury room, the juror, identified only by the initials C.A., said, "I feel a little guilty about the attempted murder charge," Justice Ecker's opinion states.

"We conclude that the jury had been discharged before [the juror] made her remark to the trial judge and, therefore, could not have been polled pursuant to Practice Book [Section] 42-31, even if the judge had immediately disclosed the incident to counsel," the high court ruled.

Two days after the comment, Judge Swords called the juror back for questioning, Justice Ecker said. A transcript embedded in the opinion indicates the inquiry was limited to questions about whether the juror recalled how the verdict was read in court. While the justices agreed with Alvarez's contention that C.A.'s answers didn't precisely confirm unanimity as of the time the jury was polled, there was no evidence to suggest the verdict was not unanimous, they said.

While reviewing similar cases, Justice Ecker said jurors sometimes provide "collateral details regarding their votes."

"Jury deliberations may arouse strong and unsettling emotions for jurors because, among other reasons, a guilty verdict can be expected to result in grave consequences for the defendant," he said.

Collateral comments don't necessarily call into question the verdict rendered, the high court ruled.

"C.A.'s remark is fully consistent with the notion that she agreed with the verdict but felt some concern about the impact that the verdict would have on the defendant," Justice Ecker said.

"Under these circumstances, C.A.'s statement that she felt 'a little guilty' about the verdict, without more, reflects that she was a human being capable of feeling compassion as she performed her solemn role as a juror," he continued.

"Her words to the trial judge, spoken shortly after delivering a consequential verdict, were insufficient to suggest that the jury verdict in the present case was not unanimous," the justices ruled.

Alvarez's defense counsel never requested a jury poll, thereby failing to preserve Alvarez's right to leverage C.A.'s comment while arguing the state violated his right to a unanimous jury, the high court noted. Nonetheless, the justices found the issue reviewable because C.A.'s comment occurred after the jury had been discharged. Under Connecticut's appellate procedure rules, issues that "arose subsequent to the trial" can be reviewed even if they are not preserved, Justice Ecker noted.

Though the high court affirmed Alvarez's conviction, the justices cautioned trial judges about meeting with jurors off the record and said any comments similar to C.A.'s should be reported immediately.

"A different remark made by a juror in a similar context could have far more serious consequences," Justice Ecker said.

"Although perhaps less personal, prudence dictates that a trial judge limit postverdict interaction with the jurors by remaining on the record in open court, relieving the jurors from their oath, thanking the jurors for their service, and then dismissing them," he added.

Alvarez was accused of stabbing his girlfriend in the back three times in 2018. He was charged with attempted murder, first-degree assault and violation of a protective order, the opinion indicates. He was tried in December 2018. Connecticut Department of Correction records indicate he received a maximum sentence of 30 years in 2019.

Lisa J. Steele of Steele & Associates, who argued Alvarez's appeal, said Thursday she was disappointed with the opinion, in part because C.A. was never questioned about what she said to the judge or whether the verdict was, indeed, hers. A recent Massachusetts case ended in a mistrial when jurors changed their minds while being polled, Steele noted.

"The opinion turns on very specific wording, but what we have are not the juror's words," Steele said. "We have the trial judge's recollection of what the juror said, first reported a couple of days later, and the judge could, in good-faith, be wrong," she added.

A representative for the Office of the Chief State's Attorney did not respond Thursday to a request for comment.

Alvarez is represented by Lisa J. Steele of Steele & Associates.

The state is represented by Jonathan M. Sousa of the Connecticut Office of the Chief State's Attorney, Appellate Bureau.

The case is State of Connecticut v. Angel A., case number SC 21180, in the Connecticut Supreme Court.

--Additional reporting by Brian Steele. Editing by Patrick Reagan.

For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.