Golding or plain error in Connecticut

2013The controlling case in this area, and the case relied upon by the defendant, is State v. Connor, supra, 292 Conn. 483 .

2013The controlling case in this area, and the case relied upon by the defendant, is State v. Connor, supra, 292 Conn. 483 .

2013Additionally, [i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 361 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).

2013Additionally, [i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 361 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).

2013Additionally, [i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 361 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).

2013Additionally, [i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Elson, 125 Conn. App. 328, 361 , 9 A.3d 731 (2010), cert. granted on other grounds, 300 Conn. 904 , 12 A.3d 572 (2011).

2010Additionally, "[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613 , 618 n. 5, 916 A.2d 17 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 868 , 128 S.Ct. 164 , 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). *767 In State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494, 504 , 775 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1052 , 122 S.Ct. 639 , 151 L.Ed.2d 558 (2001), our Supreme Court held that supervisory review is someti

2010Additionally, "[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613 , 618 n. 5, 916 A.2d 17 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 868 , 128 S.Ct. 164 , 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). *767 In State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494, 504 , 775 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1052 , 122 S.Ct. 639 , 151 L.Ed.2d 558 (2001), our Supreme Court held that supervisory review is someti

2010After extensive review of the jury instruction, however, the court held that "the interests of justice do not require that we review the defendant's claim regarding the provocation instruction." Id. [1] "[A] court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bowman, 289 Conn. 809, 817 , 960 A.2d 1027 (2008).

2010After extensive review of the jury instruction, however, the court held that "the interests of justice do not require that we review the defendant's claim regarding the provocation instruction." Id. [1] "[A] court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Bowman, 289 Conn. 809, 817 , 960 A.2d 1027 (2008).

2010Additionally, "[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613 , 618 n. 5, 916 A.2d 17 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 868 , 128 S.Ct. 164 , 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). *767 In State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494, 504 , 775 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1052 , 122 S.Ct. 639 , 151 L.Ed.2d 558 (2001), our Supreme Court held that supervisory review is someti

2010Additionally, "[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613 , 618 n. 5, 916 A.2d 17 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 868 , 128 S.Ct. 164 , 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). *767 In State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494, 504 , 775 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1052 , 122 S.Ct. 639 , 151 L.Ed.2d 558 (2001), our Supreme Court held that supervisory review is someti

2010Additionally, "[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Jones, 281 Conn. 613 , 618 n. 5, 916 A.2d 17 , cert. denied, 552 U.S. 868 , 128 S.Ct. 164 , 169 L.Ed.2d 112 (2007). *767 In State v. Revelo, 256 Conn. 494, 504 , 775 A.2d 260 , cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1052 , 122 S.Ct. 639 , 151 L.Ed.2d 558 (2001), our Supreme Court held that supervisory review is someti

2009Moreover, in State v. Roy, 233 Conn. 211, 212 , 658 A.2d 566 (1995), a unanimous Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, held that a defendant need not invoke the guidelines of Golding to get review of an unpreserved insufficiency of the evidence claim because "[i]t is an essential of the due process guaranteed by the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment that no person shall be made to suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 212-13, 658 A.2d 566 .

2009Moreover, in State v. Roy, 233 Conn. 211, 212 , 658 A.2d 566 (1995), a unanimous Supreme Court, in a per curiam decision, held that a defendant need not invoke the guidelines of Golding to get review of an unpreserved insufficiency of the evidence claim because "[i]t is an essential of the due process guaranteed by the [f]ourteenth [a]mendment that no person shall be made to suffer the onus of a criminal conviction except upon sufficient proof...." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 212-13, 658 A.2d 566 .

2009As noted by the United States Supreme Court: "Although some are prone to overlook it, an accused's right to trial by a jury of his fellow citizens when charged with a serious criminal offense is unquestionably one of his most valuable and well-established safeguards in this country." Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 215 , 78 S.Ct. 632 , 2 L.Ed.2d 672 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting).

2009As noted by the United States Supreme Court: "Although some are prone to overlook it, an accused's right to trial by a jury of his fellow citizens when charged with a serious criminal offense is unquestionably one of his most valuable and well-established safeguards in this country." Green v. United States, 356 U.S. 165, 215 , 78 S.Ct. 632 , 2 L.Ed.2d 672 (1958) (Black, J., dissenting).

2008"Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, at 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 ], must affirmatively request such review." State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn.App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) ("[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines").

2008Additionally, “[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines.” State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156 , 172 n.16, 801 A.2d 788 (2002). “[0]ur supervisory powers are invoked only in the rare circumstance where [the] traditional protections are inadequate to ensure the fair and just administration of the courts . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson, 255 Conn. 425, 439 , 773 A.2d 287 (2001). *80

2008Additionally, “[i]n certain instances, dictated by the interests of justice, we may, sua sponte, exercise our inherent supervisory power to review an unpreserved claim that has not been raised appropriately under the Golding or plain error doctrines.” State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156 , 172 n.16, 801 A.2d 788 (2002). “[0]ur supervisory powers are invoked only in the rare circumstance where [the] traditional protections are inadequate to ensure the fair and just administration of the courts . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson, 255 Conn. 425, 439 , 773 A.2d 287 (2001). *80

2008“Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, 239-40 ], must affirmatively request such review.” State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn. App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) (“[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines”).

2008“Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, 239-40 ], must affirmatively request such review.” State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn. App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) (“[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines”).

2008As a result, “we do not engage in a level of review, such as Golding or plain error, when it has not been requested by a party.” State v. Longo, 106 Conn. App. 701, 709 , 943 A.2d 488 (2008).

2008As a result, “we do not engage in a level of review, such as Golding or plain error, when it has not been requested by a party.” State v. Longo, 106 Conn. App. 701, 709 , 943 A.2d 488 (2008).

2008“Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, 239-40 ], must affirmatively request such review.” State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn. App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) (“[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines”).

2008"Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, at 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 ], must affirmatively request such review." State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn.App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) ("[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines").

2008“Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, 239-40 ], must affirmatively request such review.” State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn. App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) (“[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines”).

2008"Connecticut law is clear that a party seeking review of unpreserved claims under either the plain error doctrine; Practice Book § 60-5; or State v. Golding, [supra, at 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 ], must affirmatively request such review." State v. Wheatland, 93 Conn.App. 232, 243-44 , 888 A.2d 1098 , cert. denied, 277 Conn. 919 , 895 A.2d 793 (2006); see also State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156, 171 , 801 A.2d 788 (2002) ("[a] party is obligated . . . affirmatively to request review under [the Golding or plain error] doctrines").

2007Because the record in the present case is adequate for our review and because the defendant’s claim involves a constitutional right that we have characterized, in terms of importance to an accused, as equivalent to the right to trial itself; e.g., State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724, 732 , 859 A.2d 898 (2004); this would be an appropriate case to invoke our supervisory power, if necessary, to address the defendant’s claim. 6 The defendant has been incarcerated in lieu of bond since his arrest. 7 The defendant filed these motions on more than ten separate occasions. 8 We note that the defendant also

2007Because the record in the present case is adequate for our review and because the defendant’s claim involves a constitutional right that we have characterized, in terms of importance to an accused, as equivalent to the right to trial itself; e.g., State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724, 732 , 859 A.2d 898 (2004); this would be an appropriate case to invoke our supervisory power, if necessary, to address the defendant’s claim. 6 The defendant has been incarcerated in lieu of bond since his arrest. 7 The defendant filed these motions on more than ten separate occasions. 8 We note that the defendant also

2000The defendant raises this claim for the first time on appeal and did not request review of it under either the Golding or plain error doctrines. 6 “As this court has previously noted, it is not appropriate to engage in a level of review that is not requested.” State v. Hermann, 38 Conn. App. 56, 65 , 658 A.2d 148 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995).

2000The defendant raises this claim for the first time on appeal and did not request review of it under either the Golding or plain error doctrines. 6 “As this court has previously noted, it is not appropriate to engage in a level of review that is not requested.” State v. Hermann, 38 Conn. App. 56, 65 , 658 A.2d 148 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995).

2000The defendant raises this claim for the first time on appeal and did not request review of it under either the Golding or plain error doctrines. 6 “As this court has previously noted, it is not appropriate to engage in a level of review that is not requested.” State v. Hermann, 38 Conn. App. 56, 65 , 658 A.2d 148 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995).

2000The defendant raises this claim for the first time on appeal and did not request review of it under either the Golding or plain error doctrines. 6 “As this court has previously noted, it is not appropriate to engage in a level of review that is not requested.” State v. Hermann, 38 Conn. App. 56, 65 , 658 A.2d 148 , cert. denied, 235 Conn. 903 , 665 A.2d 904 (1995).