obvious error in Connecticut

2024Although a complete record and an obvious error are prerequisites for plain error review, they are not, of themselves, sufficient for its application. . . . [T]he 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 integ- rity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings. . . . [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 i

2019Although a complete record and an obvious error are prerequisites for plain error review, they are not, of themselves, sufficient for its application.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 812 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017). ‘‘[T]he 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 integ- rity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings. . . . [I]n addition to examining the patent nature of the error, the reviewing court must examine that error for the griev

2018Although a complete record and an obvious error are prerequisites for plain error review, they are not, of themselves, sufficient for its application." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McClain , supra, 324 Conn. at 812 , 155 A.3d 209 . "[T]he 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. ...

2017Although a complete record and an obvious error are prerequisites for plain error review, they are not, of themselves, sufficient for its application.... [T]he 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.... [I]n addition to examining the patent nature of the error, the reviewing court must examine that error for the grievousness of its consequences in order to determine whether reversal under the plain error doctrine is app

2016"The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eason , 47 Conn.App. 117 , 120, 703 A.2d 130 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 962 , 705 A.2d 552 (1998).

2001The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eason, 47 Conn. App. 117, 120 , 703 A.2d 130 (1997), cert, denied, 243 Conn. 962 , 705 A.2d 552 (1998).

2016"The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eason , 47 Conn.App. 117 , 120, 703 A.2d 130 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 962 , 705 A.2d 552 (1998).

2001The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eason, 47 Conn. App. 117, 120 , 703 A.2d 130 (1997), cert, denied, 243 Conn. 962 , 705 A.2d 552 (1998).

2016"The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eason , 47 Conn.App. 117 , 120, 703 A.2d 130 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 962 , 705 A.2d 552 (1998).

2016"The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Eason , 47 Conn.App. 117 , 120, 703 A.2d 130 (1997), cert. denied, 243 Conn. 962 , 705 A.2d 552 (1998).

2007This court previously has stated that “[t]he failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Johnson, 65 Conn. App. 470, 478 , 783 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 930 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001).

2007This court previously has stated that “[t]he failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Johnson, 65 Conn. App. 470, 478 , 783 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 930 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001).

2007This court previously has stated that “[t]he failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Johnson, 65 Conn. App. 470, 478 , 783 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 930 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001).

2007This court previously has stated that “[t]he failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Johnson, 65 Conn. App. 470, 478 , 783 A.2d 1057 , cert. denied, 258 Conn. 930 , 783 A.2d 1031 (2001).

2004We disagree. *229 The defendant concedes that this claim is unpreserved and requests review pursuant to both State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and the plain error doctrine. 6 This claim does not present the truly extraordinary situation where the existence of an obvious error affected the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings that may undermine public confidence or result in manifest injustice.

2004We disagree. *229 The defendant concedes that this claim is unpreserved and requests review pursuant to both State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and the plain error doctrine. 6 This claim does not present the truly extraordinary situation where the existence of an obvious error affected the fairness and integrity of judicial proceedings that may undermine public confidence or result in manifest injustice.

2025A party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schimenti v. Schimenti, 181 Conn. App. 385 , 392–93, 186 A.3d 739 (2018). ‘‘Put another way, plain error review is reserved for only the most egregious Page 36 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 38 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Hudson City Savings Bank v. Hellman errors.’’ State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 814 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017).

2025A party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Schimenti v. Schimenti, 181 Conn. App. 385 , 392–93, 186 A.3d 739 (2018). ‘‘Put another way, plain error review is reserved for only the most egregious Page 36 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 38 ,0 0 Conn. App. 1 Hudson City Savings Bank v. Hellman errors.’’ State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 814 , 155 A.3d 209 (2017).

2025Thus, we employ a two-pronged test to determine whether plain error has occurred: the defendant must establish that (1) there was an obvious and readily discernable error, and (2) that error was so harmful or prejudicial that it resulted in manifest injustice.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Kyle A., 348 Conn. 437 , 445–46, 307 A.3d 249 (2024).

2024This deter- mination clearly requires a review of the plain error claim presented in light of the record. ‘‘Although a complete record and an obvious error are prerequisites for plain error review, they are not, of themselves, sufficient for its application. . . . [I]n addition to examining the patent nature of the error, the reviewing court must examine that error for the grievousness of its consequences in order to determine whether reversal under the plain error doctrine is appro- priate. . . . [Thus, an appellant] cannot prevail under Page 24 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0 26 ,0 0 Conn. App.

2024Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisput- able as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of rever- sal.’’ State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 307 , 972 A.2d 691 (2009).5 ‘‘An appellate court addressing a claim of plain error first must determine if the error is indeed plain in the sense that it is patent [or] readily discernable on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 , 77, 60 A.3d 271 (2

2024Rather, the party seeking plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisput- able as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of rever- sal.’’ State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 307 , 972 A.2d 691 (2009).5 ‘‘An appellate court addressing a claim of plain error first must determine if the error is indeed plain in the sense that it is patent [or] readily discernable on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Sanchez, 308 Conn. 64 , 77, 60 A.3d 271 (2

2022A party cannot prevail under plain error unless it has demonstrated that the failure to grant relief will result in manifest injustice.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 210 Conn. App. 249 , 271–72, 269 A.3d 870 (2022).

2021In support of his argument that his unpreserved con- stitutional claim is reviewable, the defendant maintains that, pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22, ‘‘[t]he judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) The defendant relies on the interpretation of § 43-22 set forth in State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001), which determined that the term ‘‘judicial authority’’ provides ‘‘[b]oth the trial court and [an appellate] court, on appeal, have the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

2021In support of his argument that his unpreserved con- stitutional claim is reviewable, the defendant maintains that, pursuant to Practice Book § 43-22, ‘‘[t]he judicial authority may at any time correct an illegal sentence . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) The defendant relies on the interpretation of § 43-22 set forth in State v. Cator, 256 Conn. 785 , 781 A.2d 285 (2001), which determined that the term ‘‘judicial authority’’ provides ‘‘[b]oth the trial court and [an appellate] court, on appeal, have the power, at any time, to correct a sentence that is illegal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)

2021The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the [party’s] claim by focusing on whichever condition is most rele- vant in the particular circumstances.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) In re Riley B., 203 Conn. App. 627 , 636, 248 A.3d 756 , cert. denied, 336 Conn. 943 , 250 A.3d 40 (2021). ‘‘An appellant may obtain review under the plain error doctrine upon a showing that failure to rem- edy an obvious error would result in manifest injustice.’’ State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 591 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010); see also State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278, 289 , 963 A.2d 11 (2009) (

2021The appellate tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the [party’s] claim by focusing on whichever condition is most rele- vant in the particular circumstances.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) In re Riley B., 203 Conn. App. 627 , 636, 248 A.3d 756 , cert. denied, 336 Conn. 943 , 250 A.3d 40 (2021). ‘‘An appellant may obtain review under the plain error doctrine upon a showing that failure to rem- edy an obvious error would result in manifest injustice.’’ State v. Starks, 121 Conn. App. 581, 591 , 997 A.2d 546 (2010); see also State v. Myers, 290 Conn. 278, 289 , 963 A.2d 11 (2009) (

2009“Plain error review 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 confi *288 dence in the judicial proceedings.” 8 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 25 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995), quoting Scott v. Barrett, 212 Conn. 217, 222 , 561 A.2d 941 (1989).

2009“Plain error review 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 confi *288 dence in the judicial proceedings.” 8 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 25 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995), quoting Scott v. Barrett, 212 Conn. 217, 222 , 561 A.2d 941 (1989).

2009“Plain error review 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 confi *288 dence in the judicial proceedings.” 8 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 25 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995), quoting Scott v. Barrett, 212 Conn. 217, 222 , 561 A.2d 941 (1989).

2009“Plain error review 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 confi *288 dence in the judicial proceedings.” 8 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Westport Taxi Service, Inc. v. Westport Transit District, 235 Conn. 1, 25 , 664 A.2d 719 (1995), quoting Scott v. Barrett, 212 Conn. 217, 222 , 561 A.2d 941 (1989).

2009Ed. 2d 153 (2001). 11 In the present case, the defendant’s brief is bereft of a single reason why the absence of a trial or plea canvass on part B of the information is such an obvious error that “it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. LaBrec, 270 Conn. 548, 559 , 854 A.2d 1 (2004).

2009Ed. 2d 153 (2001). 11 In the present case, the defendant’s brief is bereft of a single reason why the absence of a trial or plea canvass on part B of the information is such an obvious error that “it affects the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. LaBrec, 270 Conn. 548, 559 , 854 A.2d 1 (2004).

2009Application of the plain error doctrine in the present case is, in our view, therefore, largely controlled by our reasoning in State v. Fagan, supra, 280 Conn. 69 .

2001To this desirable rule there is an obvious exception. "[T]he use of improper evidence requires a remand only if a party has affirmatively shown substantial prejudice. . . ." Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation v. Public Utilities Control Authority , 183 Conn. 128 , 139 (1981).

2000"In imposing a sanction after a finding of misconduct, a court should consider the following factors: the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, and the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." (Emphasis added.) Standards § 3.0, cited in Statewide Grievance Committee. v. Glass, 46 Conn. App. 472 , 481 , 699 A.2d 1058 (1997), and CT Page 11124 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Spirer, supra, 46 Conn. App. 464 . " After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be considered in dec

2000"In imposing a sanction after a finding of misconduct, a court should consider the following factors: the duty violated, the lawyer's mental state, and the actual or potential injury caused by the lawyer's misconduct, and the existence of aggravating or mitigating factors." (Emphasis added.) Standards § 3.0, cited in Statewide Grievance Committee. v. Glass, 46 Conn. App. 472 , 481 , 699 A.2d 1058 (1997), and CT Page 11124 Statewide Grievance Committee v. Spirer, supra, 46 Conn. App. 464 . " After misconduct has been established, aggravating and mitigating circumstances may be considered in dec

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).

1997The failure by the trial court to give, sua sponte, an instruction that the defendant did not request, that is not of constitutional dimension and that is not mandated by statute or rule of practice is not such an obvious error that it will affect the fairness and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial proceedings.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Adams, 36 Conn. App. 473, 477-78 , 651 A.2d 747 (1994), appeal dismissed, 235 Conn. 473 , 667 A.2d 796 (1995); State v. Servello, 14 Conn. App. 88, 94-95 , 540 A.2d 378 , cert. denied, 208 Conn. 811 , 545 A.2d 1107 (1988).