challenge to a jury instruction in Connecticut

2009When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is “whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790, 820 , 804 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2009When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is “whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790, 820 , 804 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2009When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is “whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790, 820 , 804 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2005When a challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is “whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790, 820 , 804 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002). “[T]he charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but it is to be considered rather as to its probable effect upon *153 the jmy in guiding [it] to a correct verdict in the case. . . .

2009When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is “whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790, 820 , 804 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002).

2005When a challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is “whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Morales, 71 Conn. App. 790, 820 , 804 A.2d 902 , cert. denied, 262 Conn. 902 , 810 A.2d 270 (2002). “[T]he charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but it is to be considered rather as to its probable effect upon *153 the jmy in guiding [it] to a correct verdict in the case. . . .

1998“A challenge to a jury instruction requires a review to determine whether it is reasonably possible that a jury was misled; State v. Ortiz, 217 Conn. 648, 667 , 588 A.2d 127 (1991); and the instruction is to be read as a whole to judge its total effect rather than its individual parts.

1998“A challenge to a jury instruction requires a review to determine whether it is reasonably possible that a jury was misled; State v. Ortiz, 217 Conn. 648, 667 , 588 A.2d 127 (1991); and the instruction is to be read as a whole to judge its total effect rather than its individual parts.

1998State v. Leroy, 232 Conn. 1, 8 , 653 A.2d 161 (1995).” State v. Schiappa, supra, 44 Conn. App. 740 .

1998State v. Leroy, 232 Conn. 1, 8 , 653 A.2d 161 (1995).” State v. Schiappa, supra, 44 Conn. App. 740 .

2010As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 253 , 941 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).

2010As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 253 , 941 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).

2010As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 253 , 941 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).

2010As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 253 , 941 A.2d 989 , cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).

2009“In determining whether it was . . . reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court’s instructions, the charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Griffin, 251 Conn. 671, 714 , 741 A.2d 913 (1999).

2009“In determining whether it was . . . reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court’s instructions, the charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Griffin, 251 Conn. 671, 714 , 741 A.2d 913 (1999).

2009“When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard *463 of review is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2009“When the challenge to a jury instruction is of constitutional magnitude, the standard of review is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury [was] misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

2005As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Russo, 89 Conn. App. 296, 302 , 873 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 908 , 882 A.2d 679 (2005).

2005As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Russo, 89 Conn. App. 296, 302 , 873 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 908 , 882 A.2d 679 (2005).

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

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

2021As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Seekins, 123 Conn. App. 220, 227 , 1 A.3d 1089 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 927 , 5 A.3d 487 (2010).

2021As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Seekins, 123 Conn. App. 220, 227 , 1 A.3d 1089 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 927 , 5 A.3d 487 (2010).

2021As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Seekins, 123 Conn. App. 220, 227 , 1 A.3d 1089 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 927 , 5 A.3d 487 (2010).

2021As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.’’ (Internal quota- tion marks omitted.) State v. Seekins, 123 Conn. App. 220, 227 , 1 A.3d 1089 , cert. denied, 298 Conn. 927 , 5 A.3d 487 (2010).

2021Addition- ally, we have noted that [a]n [impropriety] in instruc- tions in a criminal case is reversible . . . when it is shown that it is reasonably possible for [improprieties] of constitutional dimension or reasonably probable for nonconstitutional [improprieties] that the jury [was] misled.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Edwards, 334 Conn. 688 , 716–17, 224 A.3d 504 (2020). ‘‘It is well established that when a challenge to a jury instruction is not of constitutional magnitude . . . the charge to the jury is to be considered in its entirety, read as a whole, and judged by it

2019The defendant cites our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Griffin, 253 Conn. 195 , 209–10, 749 A.2d 1192 (2000), which involved a challenge to a jury instruction commonly known as a ‘‘two-inference’’ instruction.

2019The defendant cites our Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Griffin, 253 Conn. 195 , 209–10, 749 A.2d 1192 (2000), which involved a challenge to a jury instruction commonly known as a ‘‘two-inference’’ instruction.

2016Id.

2014As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arch- ambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., 287 Conn. 20, 42 , 946 A.2d 839 (2008).

2014As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arch- ambault v. Soneco/Northeastern, Inc., 287 Conn. 20, 42 , 946 A.2d 839 (2008).

2011As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Weed, 118 Conn. App. 654, 663 , 984 A.2d 1116 (2009).

2011As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury ... we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Weed, 118 Conn. App. 654, 663 , 984 A.2d 1116 (2009).

2010I The defendant first claimed that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury that a “true threat” must not be “mere bluster, exaggeration or something carelessly said in the heat of the moment.” 2 The defendant did not request such an instruction at trial and did not object to the court’s charge, but he now seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 3 We determine that the record is adequate for review and that the claim is of constitutional magnitude, 4 but we conclude that the court’s instructions were proper and, therefore, did not deprive

2010I The defendant first claimed that the court improperly failed to instruct the jury that a “true threat” must not be “mere bluster, exaggeration or something carelessly said in the heat of the moment.” 2 The defendant did not request such an instruction at trial and did not object to the court’s charge, but he now seeks review pursuant to State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 3 We determine that the record is adequate for review and that the claim is of constitutional magnitude, 4 but we conclude that the court’s instructions were proper and, therefore, did not deprive

2009“As a general rule, a defendant is entitled to have instructions on a defense for which there is evidence produced at trial to justify the instruction, no matter how weak or incredible the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 258 Conn. 1, 8 , 778 A.2d 186 (2001).

2009“As a general rule, a defendant is entitled to have instructions on a defense for which there is evidence produced at trial to justify the instruction, no matter how weak or incredible the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Williams, 258 Conn. 1, 8 , 778 A.2d 186 (2001).

2009In determining whether it was . . . reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court’s instructions, the charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement . . . .” *553 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Makee R., 117 Conn. App. 191, 198 , 978 A.2d 549 (2009).

2009In determining whether it was . . . reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court’s instructions, the charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement . . . .” *553 (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Makee R., 117 Conn. App. 191, 198 , 978 A.2d 549 (2009).

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2008As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hamilton, 92 Conn. App. 454, 462 , 886 A.2d 443 (2005), cert. denied, 277 Conn. 901 , 891 A.2d 3 (2006); see also State v. Luster, 279 Conn. 414, 421 , 902 A.2d 636 (2006); State v. Laws, 36 Conn. App. 401, 411 , 651 A.2d 273 (1994) (“ [consciousness of guilt instructions, which permit, but do not mandate, an inference of a guilty conscience, are evidentiary rather

2005As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Russo, 89 Conn. App. 296, 302 , 873 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 908 , 882 A.2d 679 (2005).

2005As long as [the instructions] are correct in law, adapted to the issues and sufficient for the guidance of the jury . . . we will not view the instructions as improper.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Russo, 89 Conn. App. 296, 302 , 873 A.2d 202 , cert. denied, 275 Conn. 908 , 882 A.2d 679 (2005).