appellate court addressing claim in Connecticut

2024When an error of such a magnitude exists, it necessitates rever- sal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 , 813–14, 155 A.3d 209 (2017). ‘‘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 [discern- ible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable. . . .

2024When an error of such a magnitude exists, it necessitates rever- sal.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 , 813–14, 155 A.3d 209 (2017). ‘‘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 [discern- ible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable. . . .

2018"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 [discernible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also ... obvious in the sense of not debatable.... "[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.) Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc. , 179 Conn. App. 196 , 1

2018"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 [discernible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also ... obvious in the sense of not debatable.... "[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.) Estela v. Bristol Hospital, Inc. , 179 Conn. App. 196 , 1

2011"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 quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 287 , 963 A.2d 11 .

2011"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 quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 287 , 963 A.2d 11 .

2026Thus, 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.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Thorpe, 353 Conn. 783 , 788–89, 347 A.3d 159 (2025); see, e.g., State v. Kyle A., 348 Conn. 437 , 445–46, 307 A.3d 249 (2024); see also, e.g., Practice 2 The defendant does not seek review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317

2025This determination clearly requires a review of the plain error claim presented in light of the record.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Banks v. Commission of Correction, 225 Conn. App. 234 , 249–50, 314 A.3d 1052 , cert. denied, 22 General Statutes § 52-470 (c) provides in relevant part: ‘‘Except as pro- vided in subsection (d) of this section, there shall be a rebuttable presump- tion that the filing of a petition challenging a judgment of conviction has been delayed without good cause if such petition is filed after the later of the following: (1) Five years afte

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

2024That is, it is a doctrine that this court invokes in order to rectify a trial court ruling that, although either not properly preserved or never raised at all in the trial court, nonetheless requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment . . . for reasons of policy.’’ (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ruocco, 322 Conn. 796, 803 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016). ‘‘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 [discernible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also .

2024That is, it is a doctrine that this court invokes in order to rectify a trial court ruling that, although either not properly preserved or never raised at all in the trial court, nonetheless requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment . . . for reasons of policy.’’ (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ruocco, 322 Conn. 796, 803 , 144 A.3d 354 (2016). ‘‘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 [discernible] on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also .

2023An 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 discernible on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) O’Rourke v. Dept. of Labor, 210 Conn. App. 836 , 855 n.15, 271 A.3d 700 (2022). ‘‘[T]he 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 judicia

2022It is a rule of reversibility . . . that this court invokes in order to rectify a trial court ruling that, although either not properly preserved or never raised at all in the trial court, nonetheless requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment, for reasons of policy.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 , 467–68, 93 A.3d 1076 (2014). ‘‘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 . . .

2022It is a rule of reversibility . . . that this court invokes in order to rectify a trial court ruling that, although either not properly preserved or never raised at all in the trial court, nonetheless requires reversal of the trial court’s judgment, for reasons of policy.’’ (Inter- nal quotation marks omitted.) Reville v. Reville, 312 Conn. 428 , 467–68, 93 A.3d 1076 (2014). ‘‘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 . . .

2019The plain error doc- trine 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- dence in the judicial proceedings.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cator v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn. App. 167 , 177 n.3, 185 A.3d 601 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 902 , 184 A.3d 1214 (2018). ‘‘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

2019The plain error doc- trine 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- dence in the judicial proceedings.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cator v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn. App. 167 , 177 n.3, 185 A.3d 601 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 902 , 184 A.3d 1214 (2018). ‘‘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

2019The plain error doc- trine 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- dence in the judicial proceedings.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cator v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn. App. 167 , 177 n.3, 185 A.3d 601 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 902 , 184 A.3d 1214 (2018). ‘‘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

2019The plain error doc- trine 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- dence in the judicial proceedings.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cator v. Commissioner of Correction, 181 Conn. App. 167 , 177 n.3, 185 A.3d 601 , cert. denied, 329 Conn. 902 , 184 A.3d 1214 (2018). ‘‘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

2014An 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 discemable on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664, 684-85 , 31 A.3d 1012 (2011).

2014An 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 discemable on the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . . obvious in the sense of not debatable.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664, 684-85 , 31 A.3d 1012 (2011).