unpreserved constitutional claim in Connecticut

2024Thus . . . we will not address an unpreserved constitutional claim [i]f the facts revealed by the record are insufficient, unclear or ambiguous as to whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 581 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007).

2024Thus . . . we will not address an unpreserved constitutional claim [i]f the facts revealed by the record are insufficient, unclear or ambiguous as to whether a constitutional violation has occurred.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Canales, 281 Conn. 572, 581 , 916 A.2d 767 (2007).

2009Under Golding , a defendant can prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim on appeal only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: “(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 trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Golding, supra, 2

2009Under Golding , a defendant can prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim on appeal only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: “(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 trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Golding, supra, 2

2010“The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 360 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.

2009Under Golding , a defendant can prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim on appeal only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: “(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 trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Golding, supra, 2

2010“The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Peeler, 271 Conn. 338, 360 , 857 A.2d 808 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 845 , 126 S. Ct. 94 , 163 L.

2009Under Golding , a defendant can prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim on appeal only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: “(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 trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt.” State v. Golding, supra, 2

1998Moreover, our Supreme Court has stated that “a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32, 65 , 630 A.2d 990 (1993).

1998Moreover, our Supreme Court has stated that “a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Walton, 227 Conn. 32, 65 , 630 A.2d 990 (1993).

1992“State v. Golding, supra, establishes that a defendant cannot prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim unless all four conditions are met, any one of which may be considered first.” 3 State v. Shaw, 24 Conn. App. 493, 497 , 589 A.2d 880 (1991).

1992“State v. Golding, supra, establishes that a defendant cannot prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim unless all four conditions are met, any one of which may be considered first.” 3 State v. Shaw, 24 Conn. App. 493, 497 , 589 A.2d 880 (1991).

2011It is equally well established that, in order *520 to prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim, appellants must affirmatively request Golding review “and bear the burden of establishing that they are entitled to appellate review of their unpreserved constitutional claims.” In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 154 , 962 A.2d 81 (2009).

2011It is equally well established that, in order *520 to prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim, appellants must affirmatively request Golding review “and bear the burden of establishing that they are entitled to appellate review of their unpreserved constitutional claims.” In re Melody L., 290 Conn. 131, 154 , 962 A.2d 81 (2009).

1993Under that requirement, a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, “considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McMurray, 217 Conn. 243, 253 , 585 A.2d 677 (1991).

1993Under that requirement, a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, “considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. McMurray, 217 Conn. 243, 253 , 585 A.2d 677 (1991).

2022Consistent with this approach to analyzing the appropriateness of reviewing an unpreserved constitutional claim under Golding, we will first determine if, under the fourth prong of Golding, the state has demonstrated that any constitutional error that may have resulted from the admission of the nontestifying complainant’s initial oral statement to the police was harmless beyond a reason- able doubt. ‘‘[W]hether a defendant is entitled to any remedy for a violation of his right to confront witnesses depends on whether the violation is legally harmless.’’ Id., 485 . ‘‘It is well established that

2022Consistent with this approach to analyzing the appropriateness of reviewing an unpreserved constitutional claim under Golding, we will first determine if, under the fourth prong of Golding, the state has demonstrated that any constitutional error that may have resulted from the admission of the nontestifying complainant’s initial oral statement to the police was harmless beyond a reason- able doubt. ‘‘[W]hether a defendant is entitled to any remedy for a violation of his right to confront witnesses depends on whether the violation is legally harmless.’’ Id., 485 . ‘‘It is well established that

2008Golding , a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, [i]t is reasonably *559 possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Serrano, 91 Conn. App. 227, 244 , 880 A.2d 183 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 908 , 884 A.2d 1029 (2005).

2008Golding , a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, [i]t is reasonably *559 possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Serrano, 91 Conn. App. 227, 244 , 880 A.2d 183 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 908 , 884 A.2d 1029 (2005).

2008Golding , a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, [i]t is reasonably *559 possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Serrano, 91 Conn. App. 227, 244 , 880 A.2d 183 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 908 , 884 A.2d 1029 (2005).

2008Golding , a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, [i]t is reasonably *559 possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Serrano, 91 Conn. App. 227, 244 , 880 A.2d 183 , cert. denied, 276 Conn. 908 , 884 A.2d 1029 (2005).

2003Although this court will review an unpreserved constitutional claim if it satisfies the criteria of State v. Golding, [supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40] . . . unpreserved evidentiary claims are not afforded the same protection.” (Citation omitted.) State v. McHolland, 71 Conn. App. 99, 108 , 800 A.2d 667 (2002); see also State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 480 , 625 A.2d 791 (1993); State v. Romero, supra, 59 Conn. App. 479 -81 (unpreserved claim regarding admission of constancy of accusation testimony does not satisfy second prong of Golding).

2003Although this court will review an unpreserved constitutional claim if it satisfies the criteria of State v. Golding, [supra, 213 Conn. 239 -40] . . . unpreserved evidentiary claims are not afforded the same protection.” (Citation omitted.) State v. McHolland, 71 Conn. App. 99, 108 , 800 A.2d 667 (2002); see also State v. Joyner, 225 Conn. 450, 480 , 625 A.2d 791 (1993); State v. Romero, supra, 59 Conn. App. 479 -81 (unpreserved claim regarding admission of constancy of accusation testimony does not satisfy second prong of Golding).

2001Under Golding , “a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pearsall, 44 Conn. App. 62, 68 , 687 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 910 , 689 A.2d 473 (1997).

1998In determining whether the jury was misled, it is well established that [a] charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but is to be considered rather as to its probable effect upon the jury in guiding them to a correct verdict in the case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pearsall, 44 Conn. App. 62, 68 , 687 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 910 , 689 A.2d 473 (1997).

2001Under Golding , “a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pearsall, 44 Conn. App. 62, 68 , 687 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 910 , 689 A.2d 473 (1997).

1998In determining whether the jury was misled, it is well established that [a] charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but is to be considered rather as to its probable effect upon the jury in guiding them to a correct verdict in the case.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pearsall, 44 Conn. App. 62, 68 , 687 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 910 , 689 A.2d 473 (1997).

2001Under Golding , “a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pearsall, 44 Conn. App. 62, 68 , 687 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 910 , 689 A.2d 473 (1997).

2001Under Golding , “a defendant may prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim of instructional error only if, considering the substance of the charge rather than the form of what was said, it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Pearsall, 44 Conn. App. 62, 68 , 687 A.2d 1301 , cert. denied, 240 Conn. 910 , 689 A.2d 473 (1997).

2023Although a petition for certification to appeal is often filed without the assistance of counsel, and, therefore, ‘‘courts should review habeas petitions with a lenient eye’’; (internal quotation marks omitted) Gilchrist v. Commissioner of Correction, 334 Conn. 548, 560 , 223 A.3d 368 (2020); ‘‘the right of self-representation pro- vides no attendant license not to comply with relevant rules of procedural and substantive law. . . .

2022In re Madison C., supra, 201 Conn. App. 196 ; see also State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 239 (party can prevail on constitutional claim that was not preserved at trial only if record is adequate to review alleged error).

2022As a result, we will not address an unpreserved constitutional claim [i]f the facts revealed by the record are insufficient, unclear or ambiguous as to whether a constitutional violation has occurred . . . .’’ (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rodriguez, 337 Conn. 175 , 186–87, 252 A.3d 811 (2020).

2021Requir- ing anything more would defeat the purpose of Golding, which, of course, is to permit a party to prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim when, on appeal, the party can demonstrate a harmful constitutional depriva- tion.’’ In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 780–81. ‘‘The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. LaFontaine, 128 Conn. App. 546 , 550 n.3, 16 A.3d 1281 (2011).

2021Requir- ing anything more would defeat the purpose of Golding, which, of course, is to permit a party to prevail on an unpreserved constitutional claim when, on appeal, the party can demonstrate a harmful constitutional depriva- tion.’’ In re Yasiel R., supra, 317 Conn. 780–81. ‘‘The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determination of whether the claim is reviewable; the second two . . . involve a determination of whether the defendant may prevail.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. LaFontaine, 128 Conn. App. 546 , 550 n.3, 16 A.3d 1281 (2011).

2021Instead, the respondent relies primarily on footnote 11 of In re Unique R., 170 Conn. App, 833, 845 n.11, 156 A.3d 1 (2017), and on In re Azareon Y., 309 Conn. 626 , 634–37, 72 A.3d 1074 (2013), to support his claim that § 17a-111a ‘‘must be interpreted to preclude the peti- tioner from filing [petitions] to terminate parental rights under § 17a-112 if the child’s health and safety can be protected by transferring guardianship of the child to a relative as a less restrictive means of permanency.’’ This, the respondent claims, is the only way ‘‘to save [§§ 17a-111a and 17a-112] from constitutio

2020With respect to the offenses committed against Tucker, the court sentenced the defendant to six years incarceration followed by five years of special parole on count six (assault in the first degree as a principal), consecutive to counts one through four, and to six years incarceration followed by five years of special parole on count seven (assault in the first degree as an accessory), consecutive to counts one through four but concurrent to count six. 4 It is undisputed that the defendant’s unpreserved constitutional claim is reviewable under Golding. 5 The defendant has not invoked the prot

2020With respect to the offenses committed against Tucker, the court sentenced the defendant to six years incarceration followed by five years of special parole on count six (assault in the first degree as a principal), consecutive to counts one through four, and to six years incarceration followed by five years of special parole on count seven (assault in the first degree as an accessory), consecutive to counts one through four but concurrent to count six. 4 It is undisputed that the defendant’s unpreserved constitutional claim is reviewable under Golding. 5 The defendant has not invoked the prot