consider claim in Connecticut

2014Specifically, in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), this court stated that ‘‘[o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.’’ One of those ‘‘ ‘exceptional circum- stances’ ’’ is ‘‘where the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a funda- mental constitutional right and a fair trial.’’ Id., 70 .

2014Specifically, in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973), this court stated that ‘‘[o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.’’ One of those ‘‘ ‘exceptional circum- stances’ ’’ is ‘‘where the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a funda- mental constitutional right and a fair trial.’’ Id., 70 .

2025See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 345 Conn. 220, 255 , 284 A.3d 1 (2022) (‘‘to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 335 Conn. 53, 58 , 225 A.3d 953 (2020) (‘‘[o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2025See, e.g., State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826, 851 , 256 A.3d 131 (2021) (‘‘[c]on- ducting a thorough, professional investigation is not an element of the government’s case’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Terwilliger, 294 Conn. 399, 409 , 984 A.2d 721 (2009) (defendant must produce 4 See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 345 Conn. 220, 255 , 284 A.3d 1 (2022) (‘‘[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party’’ (internal quotation marks

2008Practice Book § 60-5; see, e.g., River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Commission, 269 Conn. 57, 82 , 848 A.2d 395 (2004) ([o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court); PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 335 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (because review is limited to matters in record, court will not address issues not decided by trial court).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rowe, 279 Conn. 139, 149-50 ,

2008Practice Book § 60-5; see, e.g., River Bend Associates, Inc. v. Conservation & Inland Wetlands Commission, 269 Conn. 57, 82 , 848 A.2d 395 (2004) ([o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court); PSE Consulting, Inc. v. Frank Mercede & Sons, Inc., 267 Conn. 279, 335 , 838 A.2d 135 (2004) (because review is limited to matters in record, court will not address issues not decided by trial court).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Rowe, 279 Conn. 139, 149-50 ,

2025See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 345 Conn. 220, 255 , 284 A.3d 1 (2022) (‘‘to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Diaz v. Commissioner of Correction, 335 Conn. 53, 58 , 225 A.3d 953 (2020) (‘‘[o]nly in [the] most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).

2025See, e.g., State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826, 851 , 256 A.3d 131 (2021) (‘‘[c]on- ducting a thorough, professional investigation is not an element of the government’s case’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Terwilliger, 294 Conn. 399, 409 , 984 A.2d 721 (2009) (defendant must produce 4 See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 345 Conn. 220, 255 , 284 A.3d 1 (2022) (‘‘[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party’’ (internal quotation marks

2022Moreover, ‘‘ ‘we will not review a claim unless it was distinctly raised at trial.’ Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165, 203 , 982 A.2d 620 (2009); [see] id., 202–204 (declin- ing to review petitioner’s claim that habeas court improperly failed to apply due process analysis to his claim of right to appeal); see also Practice Book § 60- 5 (‘[t]he court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subse- quent to the trial’).’’ Eubanks v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 329 Conn. 584, 597 , 188 A.3d 702 (2018). ‘‘[O]nly in [the] mos

2022Moreover, ‘‘ ‘we will not review a claim unless it was distinctly raised at trial.’ Crawford v. Commissioner of Correction, 294 Conn. 165, 203 , 982 A.2d 620 (2009); [see] id., 202–204 (declin- ing to review petitioner’s claim that habeas court improperly failed to apply due process analysis to his claim of right to appeal); see also Practice Book § 60- 5 (‘[t]he court shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at the trial or arose subse- quent to the trial’).’’ Eubanks v. Commissioner of Cor- rection, 329 Conn. 584, 597 , 188 A.3d 702 (2018). ‘‘[O]nly in [the] mos

2014The plaintiff finally maintains that a reviewing court should not raise an issue sua sponte when doing so would result in undue prejudice to a party, and, further, in the present case, it was improper for the Appellate Court to raise the issue that it did because the plaintiff was unfairly prejudiced by the court’s action. ‘‘It is well settled that [o]ur case law and rules of practice generally limit [an appellate] court’s review to issues that are distinctly raised at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 442 , 978 A.2d 1089 (2009); see Practice Book §

2014The plaintiff finally maintains that a reviewing court should not raise an issue sua sponte when doing so would result in undue prejudice to a party, and, further, in the present case, it was improper for the Appellate Court to raise the issue that it did because the plaintiff was unfairly prejudiced by the court’s action. ‘‘It is well settled that [o]ur case law and rules of practice generally limit [an appellate] court’s review to issues that are distinctly raised at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 442 , 978 A.2d 1089 (2009); see Practice Book §

2014The plaintiff finally maintains that a reviewing court should not raise an issue sua sponte when doing so would result in undue prejudice to a party, and, further, in the present case, it was improper for the Appellate Court to raise the issue that it did because the plaintiff was unfairly prejudiced by the court’s action. ‘‘It is well settled that [o]ur case law and rules of practice generally limit [an appellate] court’s review to issues that are distinctly raised at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 442 , 978 A.2d 1089 (2009); see Practice Book §

2014The plaintiff finally maintains that a reviewing court should not raise an issue sua sponte when doing so would result in undue prejudice to a party, and, further, in the present case, it was improper for the Appellate Court to raise the issue that it did because the plaintiff was unfairly prejudiced by the court’s action. ‘‘It is well settled that [o]ur case law and rules of practice generally limit [an appellate] court’s review to issues that are distinctly raised at trial.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435, 442 , 978 A.2d 1089 (2009); see Practice Book §

1986Practice Book §§ 854, 3063; see also State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 81 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985). “ ‘Only in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.’ State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). ‘The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and “does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until jt is too late for them to be corrected or even conside

1986Practice Book §§ 854, 3063; see also State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 81 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985). “ ‘Only in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.’ State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). ‘The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and “does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until jt is too late for them to be corrected or even conside

1986Practice Book §§ 854, 3063; see also State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 81 , 502 A.2d 388 (1985). “ ‘Only in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.’ State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). ‘The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and “does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until jt is too late for them to be corrected or even conside

1985“The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and ‘does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until it is too late for them to be corrected or even considered and then, if the outcome proves unsatisfactory, to raise them for the first time on an appeal.’ State v. Taylor, 153 Conn. 72, 86 , 214 A.2d 362 [1965], cert. denied, 384 U.S. 921 , 86 S. Ct. 1372 , 16 L.

1987“Only in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.” State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). “ ‘The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and “does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until it is too late for them to be corrected or even considered and then, if the outcome proves unsatisfactory, to raise them for the first time on appeal.”

1987“Only in most exceptional circumstances can and will this court consider a claim, constitutional or otherwise, that has not been raised and decided in the trial court.” State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 69 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973). “ ‘The policy behind this rule is both ancient and sound and “does not permit a defendant in a criminal case to fail, whether from a mistake of law, inattention or design, to object to matters occurring during a trial until it is too late for them to be corrected or even considered and then, if the outcome proves unsatisfactory, to raise them for the first time on appeal.”

1986Ed. 2d 442 [1966]; State v. Evans, supra, 66 ; State v. Tuller, 34 Conn. 280, 295 [1867].’ State v. Baker, 182 Conn. 52, 56 , 437 A.2d 843 (1980).” State v. Hinckley, supra, 81 ; see State v. Reddick, 197 Conn. 115, 125 , 496 A.2d 466 (1985).

1986Ed. 2d 442 [1966]; State v. Evans, supra, 66 ; State v. Tuller, 34 Conn. 280, 295 [1867].’ State v. Baker, 182 Conn. 52, 56 , 437 A.2d 843 (1980).” State v. Hinckley, supra, 81 ; see State v. Reddick, 197 Conn. 115, 125 , 496 A.2d 466 (1985).

2025See, e.g., State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826, 851 , 256 A.3d 131 (2021) (‘‘[c]on- ducting a thorough, professional investigation is not an element of the government’s case’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)); see also State v. Terwilliger, 294 Conn. 399, 409 , 984 A.2d 721 (2009) (defendant must produce 4 See, e.g., State v. Ortega, 345 Conn. 220, 255 , 284 A.3d 1 (2022) (‘‘[f]or this court to . . . consider [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade, unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party’’ (internal quotation marks