section 60-5 plain error doctrine in Connecticut

2013These claims were not preserved at trial, so he seeks review under the familiar four prongs of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or alternatively, under the plain error doctrine pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.

2013These claims were not preserved at trial, so he seeks review under the familiar four prongs of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), or alternatively, under the plain error doctrine pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.

2005“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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) West- *139 port Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 25 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995).

2005“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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) West- *139 port Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 25 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995).

2000“The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woods, 250 Conn. 807, 814 , 740 A.2d 371 (1999). “[W]e consistently have stated that review under the plain error doctrine is 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 quotatio

2000“The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woods, 250 Conn. 807, 814 , 740 A.2d 371 (1999). “[W]e consistently have stated that review under the plain error doctrine is 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 quotatio

2024Given that the plaintiff’s claims challenging the court’s construction of § 52-196a are preserved, we have no reason to resort to the plain error doctrine, which ‘‘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.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taveras, 219 Conn. App. 252 , 269, 295 A.3d 421 , cert. denied, 348 Conn. 903 , 301 A.3d 527 (2023). 4 The

2024Given that the plaintiff’s claims challenging the court’s construction of § 52-196a are preserved, we have no reason to resort to the plain error doctrine, which ‘‘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.’’ (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taveras, 219 Conn. App. 252 , 269, 295 A.3d 421 , cert. denied, 348 Conn. 903 , 301 A.3d 527 (2023). 4 The

2019We previously have held that ‘‘[b]ecause the record is inadequate for review under Golding, it is also inadequate for consideration under the plain error doctrine.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leon, 159 Conn. App. 526 , 536 n.9, 123 A.3d 136 , cert. denied, 319 Conn. 949 , 125 A.3d 529 (2015).

2019We previously have held that ‘‘[b]ecause the record is inadequate for review under Golding, it is also inadequate for consideration under the plain error doctrine.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Leon, 159 Conn. App. 526 , 536 n.9, 123 A.3d 136 , cert. denied, 319 Conn. 949 , 125 A.3d 529 (2015).

2018When an error of such a magnitude exists, it necessitates reversal." State v. McClain , 324 Conn. 802 , 814, 155 A.3d 209 (2017). "[T]he plain error doctrine ... is not ... a rule of reviewability.

2018When an error of such a magnitude exists, it necessitates reversal." State v. McClain , 324 Conn. 802 , 814, 155 A.3d 209 (2017). "[T]he plain error doctrine ... is not ... a rule of reviewability.

2010“This court reviews rulings solely on the ground on which the party’s objection is based. . . . [A]rticulating the basis of the objection alert[s] the court to any claims of error while there is still an opportunity for correction.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 310 , 664 A.2d 743 (1995). “[W]e have consistently declined to review claims based on a ground different from that raised in the trial court . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gebhardt, 83 Conn. App. 772, 778 , 851 A.2d 391 (2004). *35 In the alternative, the

2010“This court reviews rulings solely on the ground on which the party’s objection is based. . . . [A]rticulating the basis of the objection alert[s] the court to any claims of error while there is still an opportunity for correction.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 310 , 664 A.2d 743 (1995). “[W]e have consistently declined to review claims based on a ground different from that raised in the trial court . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gebhardt, 83 Conn. App. 772, 778 , 851 A.2d 391 (2004). *35 In the alternative, the

2010“This court reviews rulings solely on the ground on which the party’s objection is based. . . . [A]rticulating the basis of the objection alert[s] the court to any claims of error while there is still an opportunity for correction.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 310 , 664 A.2d 743 (1995). “[W]e have consistently declined to review claims based on a ground different from that raised in the trial court . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gebhardt, 83 Conn. App. 772, 778 , 851 A.2d 391 (2004). *35 In the alternative, the

2010“This court reviews rulings solely on the ground on which the party’s objection is based. . . . [A]rticulating the basis of the objection alert[s] the court to any claims of error while there is still an opportunity for correction.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 310 , 664 A.2d 743 (1995). “[W]e have consistently declined to review claims based on a ground different from that raised in the trial court . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gebhardt, 83 Conn. App. 772, 778 , 851 A.2d 391 (2004). *35 In the alternative, the

2009Furthermore, the court’s failure to exclude blood evidence that clearly was not the defendant’s blood constituted plain error within the meaning of Practice Book § 60-5, which provides in relevant part that a reviewing court “may in the interests of justice notice plain error not brought to the attention of the trial court. ...” (Emphasis added.) See State v. Preyer, 198 Conn. 190, 199 , 502 A.2d 858 (1985) (reversing conviction on basis of nonpreserved error because “interest of justice” required it). 2 Although we reverse the judgment on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence, which

2009Furthermore, the court’s failure to exclude blood evidence that clearly was not the defendant’s blood constituted plain error within the meaning of Practice Book § 60-5, which provides in relevant part that a reviewing court “may in the interests of justice notice plain error not brought to the attention of the trial court. ...” (Emphasis added.) See State v. Preyer, 198 Conn. 190, 199 , 502 A.2d 858 (1985) (reversing conviction on basis of nonpreserved error because “interest of justice” required it). 2 Although we reverse the judgment on the grounds of the inadmissibility of evidence, which

2009As our courts often have stated, “[w]here a defendant fails to seek review of an unpreserved claim under either Golding or the plain error doctrine, this court will not examine such a claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Parham, 70 Conn. App. 223 , 231 n.9, 797 A.2d 599 (2002); see also Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 53, 60 , 951 A.2d 520 (2008).

2009As our courts often have stated, “[w]here a defendant fails to seek review of an unpreserved claim under either Golding or the plain error doctrine, this court will not examine such a claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Parham, 70 Conn. App. 223 , 231 n.9, 797 A.2d 599 (2002); see also Johnson v. Commissioner of Correction, 288 Conn. 53, 60 , 951 A.2d 520 (2008).

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2007Review under the plain error doctrine “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.) Menon v. Dux, 81 Conn. App. 167, 172 , 838 A.2d 1038 , cert. denied, 269 Conn. 913 , 852 A.2d 743 , cert. denied, 543 U.S. 1003 , 125 S. Ct. 623 , 160 L.

2004The petitioner concedes that fact yet posits that this court, in the interest of justice, should conclude that “the habeas court’s refusal to sua sponte [conclude that the canvass was infirm on this ground] constitutes plain error pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.” “[T]his court is not bound to consider a claimed error unless it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised at trial and was ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant’s claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199, 203 , 848 A.2d 1229 ,

2004The petitioner concedes that fact yet posits that this court, in the interest of justice, should conclude that “the habeas court’s refusal to sua sponte [conclude that the canvass was infirm on this ground] constitutes plain error pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.” “[T]his court is not bound to consider a claimed error unless it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised at trial and was ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant’s claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199, 203 , 848 A.2d 1229 ,

2004“Review under the plain error doctrine ... 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.) Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115, 119-20 , 847 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).

2004“Review under the plain error doctrine ... 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.) Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115, 119-20 , 847 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).

2004“Review under the plain error doctrine ... 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.) Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115, 119-20 , 847 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).

2004“Review under the plain error doctrine ... 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.) Nashid v. Andrawis, 83 Conn. App. 115, 119-20 , 847 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 270 Conn. 912 , 853 A.2d 528 (2004).

2004The petitioner concedes that fact yet posits that this court, in the interest of justice, should conclude that “the habeas court’s refusal to sua sponte [conclude that the canvass was infirm on this ground] constitutes plain error pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.” “[T]his court is not bound to consider a claimed error unless it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised at trial and was ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant’s claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199, 203 , 848 A.2d 1229 ,

2004The petitioner concedes that fact yet posits that this court, in the interest of justice, should conclude that “the habeas court’s refusal to sua sponte [conclude that the canvass was infirm on this ground] constitutes plain error pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5.” “[T]his court is not bound to consider a claimed error unless it appears on the record that the question was distinctly raised at trial and was ruled upon and decided by the court adversely to the appellant’s claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Hunnicutt v. Commissioner of Correction, 83 Conn. App. 199, 203 , 848 A.2d 1229 ,

2001“The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice. . . . [W]e consistently have stated that review under the plain error doctrine is 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.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Murphy, 254 Conn. 561, 572 , 757 A.2d 1125 (2

2001“The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice. . . . [W]e consistently have stated that review under the plain error doctrine is 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.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Murphy, 254 Conn. 561, 572 , 757 A.2d 1125 (2

2000“The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woods, 250 Conn. 807, 814 , 740 A.2d 371 (1999). “[W]e consistently have stated that review under the plain error doctrine is 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 quotatio

2000“The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Woods, 250 Conn. 807, 814 , 740 A.2d 371 (1999). “[W]e consistently have stated that review under the plain error doctrine is 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 quotatio

1999“It is . . . constitutionally axiomatic that the jury be instructed on the essential elements of a crime charged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477, 483 , 668 A.2d 682 (1995).

1999“It is . . . constitutionally axiomatic that the jury be instructed on the essential elements of a crime charged.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Denby, 235 Conn. 477, 483 , 668 A.2d 682 (1995).

1999The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate “that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.” State v. Day, 233 Conn. 813, 849 , 661 A.2d 539 (1995).

1999The plain error doctrine of Practice Book § 60-5 requires a defendant to demonstrate “that the claimed error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.” State v. Day, 233 Conn. 813, 849 , 661 A.2d 539 (1995).

1998He seeks review, however, pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 233 (1989), or the plain error doctrine pursuant to Practice Book § 60-5, formerly § 4061. 16 In Golding, we held that “a defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair tr