plain error in Connecticut

2026See, e.g., State v. William G., 232 Conn. App. 317 , 327–29, 335 A.3d 511 (2025). 6 The plain error doctrine, set forth in Practice Book § 60-5, is a rule of reversibility “reserved for truly extraordinary situations [in which] the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 812 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017). 7 In his principal brief, which he filed shortly before our decision in Adam P. was released, the defendant requests that we exercise our

2026See, e.g., State v. William G., 232 Conn. App. 317 , 327–29, 335 A.3d 511 (2025). 6 The plain error doctrine, set forth in Practice Book § 60-5, is a rule of reversibility “reserved for truly extraordinary situations [in which] the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 812 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017). 7 In his principal brief, which he filed shortly before our decision in Adam P. was released, the defendant requests that we exercise our

2026“It is well settled that [o]ur case law and rules of prac- tice generally limit [an appellate] court’s review to issues that are distinctly raised at trial, and [o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will [an appel- late] court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bolton, 352 Conn. 477, 499, 337 A.3d 1114 (2025); see also Practice 3 The defendant does not argue that his claim is of constitutional magnitude and, therefore, reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn.

2026“It is well settled that [o]ur case law and rules of prac- tice generally limit [an appellate] court’s review to issues that are distinctly raised at trial, and [o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will [an appel- late] court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bolton, 352 Conn. 477, 499, 337 A.3d 1114 (2025); see also Practice 3 The defendant does not argue that his claim is of constitutional magnitude and, therefore, reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn.

2024The plain error doctrine is an ‘‘extraordinary remedy,’’ to correct injustices that are of ‘‘monumental propor- tion . . . .’’ State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278, 289 , 963 A.2d 11 (2009).

2024The plain error doctrine is an ‘‘extraordinary remedy,’’ to correct injustices that are of ‘‘monumental propor- tion . . . .’’ State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278, 289 , 963 A.2d 11 (2009).

2025We have already determined that the record is inadequate for our review of that claim under Golding, and where ‘‘the record is inadequate for review under Golding it is also inadequate for consideration Page 38 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 40 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Wright under the plain error doctrine.’’ Mozell v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 , 69 n.3, 967 A.2d 41 (2009).

2025We have already determined that the record is inadequate for our review of that claim under Golding, and where ‘‘the record is inadequate for review under Golding it is also inadequate for consideration Page 38 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 40 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 State v. Wright under the plain error doctrine.’’ Mozell v. Commis- sioner of Correction, 291 Conn. 62 , 69 n.3, 967 A.2d 41 (2009).

2017In other cases, [it] has addressed a claim of plain error despite a finding of waiver or induced error, but nonetheless has relied in part on the defendant's action as a basis for concluding that the defendant had not demonstrated the manifest injustice or prejudice required to prevail under the plain error doctrine." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Darryl W. , 303 Conn. 353 , 371-72 n.17, 33 A.3d 239 (2012) ; see also State v. Coward , 292 Conn. 296 , 305-13, 972 A.2d 691 (2009) (applying plain error doctrine to instructional impropriety that defendant conceded

2017In other cases, [it] has addressed a claim of plain error despite a finding of waiver or induced error, but nonetheless has relied in part on the defendant's action as a basis for concluding that the defendant had not demonstrated the manifest injustice or prejudice required to prevail under the plain error doctrine." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Darryl W. , 303 Conn. 353 , 371-72 n.17, 33 A.3d 239 (2012) ; see also State v. Coward , 292 Conn. 296 , 305-13, 972 A.2d 691 (2009) (applying plain error doctrine to instructional impropriety that defendant conceded

2025See State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 374 , 33 A.3d 239 (2012) (‘[i]t is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doctrine’ . . .); State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 104 n.8, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) (same) . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 Conn. 660 , 683–84, 224 A.3d 129 (2020).

2025See State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 374 , 33 A.3d 239 (2012) (‘[i]t is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doctrine’ . . .); State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 104 n.8, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) (same) . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) State v. Turner, 334 Conn. 660 , 683–84, 224 A.3d 129 (2020).

2026He argues that the court’s instruction eliminated the requirement that the state prove that the defendant 5 “Having determined that the defendant’s claim fails under the first prong of the plain error doctrine, we need not reach the second prong, which examines whether the omission was so harmful or prejudicial that it resulted in manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Blaine, 334 Conn. 298 , 313 n.5, 221 A.3d 798 (2019).

2025When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review 15 The plain error doctrine ‘‘is an extraordinary remedy used by appellate courts to rectify errors committed at trial that, although unpreserved, are of such monumental proportion that they threaten to erode our system of justice and work a serious and manifest injustice on the aggrieved party.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Blaine, 334 Conn. 298, 305 , 221 A.3d 798 (2019); see Practice Book § 60-5. 0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 19 0 Conn. 1 ,0 21 State v. Bolton is whether it i

2020See State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 374 , 33 A.3d 239 (2012) (‘‘[i]t is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doc- trine’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 104 n.8, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) (same); see also State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400 , 458 n.6, 147 A.3d 655 (2016) (Rogers, C.

2020See State v. Darryl W., 303 Conn. 353, 374 , 33 A.3d 239 (2012) (‘‘[i]t is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doc- trine’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 104 n.8, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) (same); see also State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400 , 458 n.6, 147 A.3d 655 (2016) (Rogers, C.

2018The plaintiff cites Wiegand v. Wiegand , supra, 129 Conn. App. at 526 , 21 A.3d 489 , and Watrous v. Watrous , 108 Conn. App. 813 , 949 A.2d 557 (2008), in support of her plain error claim without any analysis. "[An appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error doctrine] ... unless [she] demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain , 324 Conn. 782 , 812, 155 A.3d 209 (2017).

2018There are two prongs of the plain error doctrine; an appellant cannot prevail under the plain error doctrine "unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) *226 Id., at 597 , 134 A.3d 560 ; accord State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 812 , 155 A.3d 209 .

2008Ed. 2d 64 (2000); see also Practice Book § 60-5. “[Plain error] review is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 87-88 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985).

2008Ed. 2d 64 (2000); see also Practice Book § 60-5. “[Plain error] review is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 87-88 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985).

2012On appeal, the defendant argues that the claim is reviewable (1) because he has a constitutionally protected right to review of any and all claims on appeal; (2) under the doctrine set forth in State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); (3) under the doctrine set forth in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973); (4) under the plain error doctrine codified in Practice Book § 60-5; and (5) under the exercise of this court’s inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice.

2012On appeal, the defendant argues that the claim is reviewable (1) because he has a constitutionally protected right to review of any and all claims on appeal; (2) under the doctrine set forth in State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989); (3) under the doctrine set forth in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973); (4) under the plain error doctrine codified in Practice Book § 60-5; and (5) under the exercise of this court’s inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice.

2019In State v. Fagan , [ 280 Conn. 69 , 87, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007) ], [our Supreme Court] described the two-pronged nature of the plain error doctrine: [An appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error doctrine] ... unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez , 308 Conn. 64 , 76-78, 60 A.3d 271 (2013).

2019In State v. Fagan , [ 280 Conn. 69 , 87, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007) ], [our Supreme Court] described the two-pronged nature of the plain error doctrine: [An appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error doctrine] ... unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez , 308 Conn. 64 , 76-78, 60 A.3d 271 (2013).

2022Ultimately, our Supreme Court in State v. D’ Antonio, supra, 274 Conn. 658 , overruled earlier Appellate Court reversals under the plain error doctrine in State v. D’An- tonio, 79 Conn. App. 683, 691 , 830 A.2d 1187 (2003), rev’d, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696 (2005), and State v. D’Antonio, 79 Conn. App. 696 , 830 A.2d 1196 (2003), rev’d, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696 (2005), ruling that the violation of the Niblack rule, although improper, did not constitute plain error where the record showed that the trial judge presided over proceedings in a fair and evenhanded manner, no reference was made

2022Ultimately, our Supreme Court in State v. D’ Antonio, supra, 274 Conn. 658 , overruled earlier Appellate Court reversals under the plain error doctrine in State v. D’An- tonio, 79 Conn. App. 683, 691 , 830 A.2d 1187 (2003), rev’d, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696 (2005), and State v. D’Antonio, 79 Conn. App. 696 , 830 A.2d 1196 (2003), rev’d, 274 Conn. 658 , 877 A.2d 696 (2005), ruling that the violation of the Niblack rule, although improper, did not constitute plain error where the record showed that the trial judge presided over proceedings in a fair and evenhanded manner, no reference was made

2022See State v. Pierce, 269 Conn. 442, 453 , 849 A.2d 375 (2004) (‘‘the plain error doctrine should not be applied in order to review a ruling that is not arguably incorrect in the first place’’). 4 Practice Book § 17-43 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) Any judgment ren- dered or decree passed upon a default or nonsuit may be set aside within four months succeeding the date on which notice was sent, and the case reinstated on the docket on such terms in respect to costs as the judicial authority deems reasonable, upon the written motion of any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing reasonabl

2022See State v. Pierce, 269 Conn. 442, 453 , 849 A.2d 375 (2004) (‘‘the plain error doctrine should not be applied in order to review a ruling that is not arguably incorrect in the first place’’). 4 Practice Book § 17-43 provides in relevant part: ‘‘(a) Any judgment ren- dered or decree passed upon a default or nonsuit may be set aside within four months succeeding the date on which notice was sent, and the case reinstated on the docket on such terms in respect to costs as the judicial authority deems reasonable, upon the written motion of any party or person prejudiced thereby, showing reasonabl

2018See Cameron v. Cameron , 187 Conn. 163 , 168, 444 A.2d 915 (1982) (Supreme Court reviewed unpreserved claim of judicial bias under plain error because it "implicates basic concepts of fair trial"). "[The plain error] doctrine, codified at Practice Book § 60-5, is an extraordinary remedy used by appellate courts to rectify errors committed at trial that, although unpreserved, are of such monumental proportion that they threaten to erode our system of justice and work a serious and manifest injustice on the aggrieved party. [T]he plain error doctrine ... is not ... a rule of reviewability.

2018See Cameron v. Cameron , 187 Conn. 163 , 168, 444 A.2d 915 (1982) (Supreme Court reviewed unpreserved claim of judicial bias under plain error because it "implicates basic concepts of fair trial"). "[The plain error] doctrine, codified at Practice Book § 60-5, is an extraordinary remedy used by appellate courts to rectify errors committed at trial that, although unpreserved, are of such monumental proportion that they threaten to erode our system of justice and work a serious and manifest injustice on the aggrieved party. [T]he plain error doctrine ... is not ... a rule of reviewability.

2019In State v. Fagan , [ 280 Conn. 69 , 87, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007) ], [our Supreme Court] described the two-pronged nature of the plain error doctrine: [An appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error doctrine] ... unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez , 308 Conn. 64 , 76-78, 60 A.3d 271 (2013).

2019In State v. Fagan , [ 280 Conn. 69 , 87, 905 A.2d 1101 (2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 1269 , 127 S.Ct. 1491 , 167 L.Ed.2d 236 (2007) ], [our Supreme Court] described the two-pronged nature of the plain error doctrine: [An appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error doctrine] ... unless he demonstrates that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice." (Citation omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez , 308 Conn. 64 , 76-78, 60 A.3d 271 (2013).

2016Further, despite the trial court having clearly violated a supervisory rule, the Supreme Court concluded that the defendant was not entitled to a reversal either under the plain error doctrine; id., at 239-40 , 881 A.2d 160 ; or pursuant to the court's supervisory authority.

2008Accordingly, we are not convinced that the potential danger of misunderstanding was “so significant as to affect the fairness and integrity of or the public confidence in the proceeding, as required for reversal under the plain error doctrine.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lawrence, supra, 282 Conn. 183 , quoting State v. Smith, 275 Conn. 205, 246 , 881 A.2d 160 (2005) (trial court’s contravention of direction in State v. Schiappa, 248 Conn. 132, 175 , 728 A.2d 466 , cert. denied, 528 U.S. 862 , 120 S. Ct. 152 , 145 L.

2026I We first address the defendant’s claim that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on a theory of liability that was not charged in the infor- mation, in violation of his sixth amendment right to be informed of the charges against him.4 The court instructed the jury, in accordance with subdivision 3 The state filed a substitute information on July 18, 2023, that deleted an erroneous reference to General Statutes § 53a-48 and fixed a few minor errors, but the substitute information was otherwise identical to the July 7, 2023 information. 4 Because the defendant waived h

2026I We first address the defendant’s claim that the trial court committed plain error by instructing the jury on a theory of liability that was not charged in the infor- mation, in violation of his sixth amendment right to be informed of the charges against him.4 The court instructed the jury, in accordance with subdivision 3 The state filed a substitute information on July 18, 2023, that deleted an erroneous reference to General Statutes § 53a-48 and fixed a few minor errors, but the substitute information was otherwise identical to the July 7, 2023 information. 4 Because the defendant waived h

2011Our Supreme Court instructs that "it is well established that [an appellate] court will not apply the plain error doctrine when it has not been requested affirmatively by a party. . . ." Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 , 125 n. 26, 956 A.2d 1145 (2008); see also Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 53, 60 , 951 A.2d 520 (2008) (noting that "`[a] party is obligated. . . affirmatively to request review'" under plain error doctrine and declining to consider unpreserved claim thereunder because petitioner failed to request that court undertake such review); State

2011Our Supreme Court instructs that "it is well established that [an appellate] court will not apply the plain error doctrine when it has not been requested affirmatively by a party. . . ." Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Gilmore, 289 Conn. 88 , 125 n. 26, 956 A.2d 1145 (2008); see also Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 53, 60 , 951 A.2d 520 (2008) (noting that "`[a] party is obligated. . . affirmatively to request review'" under plain error doctrine and declining to consider unpreserved claim thereunder because petitioner failed to request that court undertake such review); State

2026“It is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doctrine.” State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 104 n.8, 25 A.3d 594 (2011); see, e.g., State v. Adam P., supra, 351 Conn. 235 n.4 (there was no plain error when trial court “laudably undertook its best efforts to faithfully implement the direction that this court provided in Daniel W.

2026“It is axiomatic that the trial court’s proper application of the law existing at the time of trial cannot constitute reversible error under the plain error doctrine.” State v. Diaz, 302 Conn. 93 , 104 n.8, 25 A.3d 594 (2011); see, e.g., State v. Adam P., supra, 351 Conn. 235 n.4 (there was no plain error when trial court “laudably undertook its best efforts to faithfully implement the direction that this court provided in Daniel W.

2017Turning then to the second prong, in "address[ing] ... claim[s] of plain error despite a finding of waiver or induced error ... [our Supreme Court] has relied in part on the defendant's action as a basis for concluding that the defendant had not demonstrated the manifest injustice or prejudice required to prevail under the plain error doctrine." State v. Darryl W. , supra, 303 Conn. at 372 n.17, 33 A.3d 239 ; see also State v. Alston , 272 Conn. 432 , 456, 862 A.2d 817 (2005) ("we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to a new trial because he induced the trial court to take the very act

2017Turning then to the second prong, in "address[ing] ... claim[s] of plain error despite a finding of waiver or induced error ... [our Supreme Court] has relied in part on the defendant's action as a basis for concluding that the defendant had not demonstrated the manifest injustice or prejudice required to prevail under the plain error doctrine." State v. Darryl W. , supra, 303 Conn. at 372 n.17, 33 A.3d 239 ; see also State v. Alston , 272 Conn. 432 , 456, 862 A.2d 817 (2005) ("we conclude that the defendant is not entitled to a new trial because he induced the trial court to take the very act

2001The defendant also claims that he should prevail under the plain error doctrine. “[PJlain error review is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43, 77 , 644 A.2d 887 (1994); State v. Boles, 223 Conn. 535, 551 , 613 A.2d 770 (1992); State v. Wright, 207 Conn. 276, 288-89 , 542 A.2d 299 (1988); State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 469 , 522 A.2d 249 (1987).

2001The defendant also claims that he should prevail under the plain error doctrine. “[PJlain error review is reserved for truly extraordinary situations where the existence of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43, 77 , 644 A.2d 887 (1994); State v. Boles, 223 Conn. 535, 551 , 613 A.2d 770 (1992); State v. Wright, 207 Conn. 276, 288-89 , 542 A.2d 299 (1988); State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 469 , 522 A.2d 249 (1987).

2010The defendant argues that even if we find that the claim was improperly preserved at trial, the claim is *257 reviewable under the plain error doctrine. 5 He claims that the error is “so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Day, 233 Conn. 813, 849 , 661 A.2d 539 (1995).

2010The defendant argues that even if we find that the claim was improperly preserved at trial, the claim is *257 reviewable under the plain error doctrine. 5 He claims that the error is “so obvious that it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Day, 233 Conn. 813, 849 , 661 A.2d 539 (1995).

1996We note that the Supreme Court has recently granted certification to consider whether it should reconsider its holding in Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510 , 441 A.2d 163 (1981), that the failure to raise a claim in a motion to set aside a verdict limits the court to plain error review of that claim.

1996We note that the Supreme Court has recently granted certification to consider whether it should reconsider its holding in Pietrorazio v. Santopietro, 185 Conn. 510 , 441 A.2d 163 (1981), that the failure to raise a claim in a motion to set aside a verdict limits the court to plain error review of that claim.

2025In Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 335 , 359–60, 297 A.3d 541 (2023), our Supreme Court concluded ‘‘that unpreserved claims challenging the habeas court’s han- dling of the habeas proceeding are reviewable under the plain error doctrine and Golding, despite the peti- tioner’s failure to include such claims in the petition for certification to appeal denied by the habeas court, if the petitioner can demonstrate, consistent with [the criteria set forth in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 618 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994) (Simms II)], that the unpre- served claims involve issues that are de

2025In Banks v. Commissioner of Correction, 347 Conn. 335 , 359–60, 297 A.3d 541 (2023), our Supreme Court concluded ‘‘that unpreserved claims challenging the habeas court’s han- dling of the habeas proceeding are reviewable under the plain error doctrine and Golding, despite the peti- tioner’s failure to include such claims in the petition for certification to appeal denied by the habeas court, if the petitioner can demonstrate, consistent with [the criteria set forth in Simms v. Warden, 230 Conn. 608, 618 , 646 A.2d 126 (1994) (Simms II)], that the unpre- served claims involve issues that are de