jailhouse informant instruction in Connecticut

2020The Appellate Court’s holding on this point is not at issue in the present appeal. 7 Alternatively, the defendant urges this court to ‘‘extend the rule of State v. Patterson, [supra, 276 Conn. 452 ], to all jailed informants who received a benefit for their testimony.’’ (Emphasis added.) Because we agree with the defendant that a jailhouse informant instruction was required in the present case, even though Shannon testified about a confession that occurred outside of the prison context, we need not address the defendant’s alternative request for an expansion of the Patterson rule. 8 ‘‘‘Under t

2019Specifically, the defendant argues that the jailhouse informant instruction, recognized in State v. Patterson , 276 Conn. 452 , 886 A.2d 777 (2005), should extend to cases like his, where a witness such as Shannon is incarcerated at the time he provides information to the police for the purposes *758 of getting out of jail and receiving a favorable disposition of his pending criminal charges. 9 We disagree.

2023If a requested charge is in substance given, the court’s failure to give a charge in exact confor- mance with the words of the request will not constitute a ground for reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336, 368 , 803 A.2d 267 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1217 , 123 S. Ct. 1318 , 154 L.

2023If a requested charge is in substance given, the court’s failure to give a charge in exact confor- mance with the words of the request will not constitute a ground for reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336, 368 , 803 A.2d 267 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1217 , 123 S. Ct. 1318 , 154 L.

2023If a requested charge is in substance given, the court’s failure to give a charge in exact confor- mance with the words of the request will not constitute a ground for reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336, 368 , 803 A.2d 267 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1217 , 123 S. Ct. 1318 , 154 L.

2023If a requested charge is in substance given, the court’s failure to give a charge in exact confor- mance with the words of the request will not constitute a ground for reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336, 368 , 803 A.2d 267 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1217 , 123 S. Ct. 1318 , 154 L.

2023If a requested charge is in substance given, the court’s failure to give a charge in exact confor- mance with the words of the request will not constitute a ground for reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Dehaney, 261 Conn. 336, 368 , 803 A.2d 267 (2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1217 , 123 S. Ct. 1318 , 154 L.

2020The Appellate Court deter- mined that the defendant was not entitled to a jailhouse informant instruction pursuant to State v. Diaz, supra, 302 Conn. 101–102, and State v. Salmond, 179 Conn. App. 605 , 627–28, 180 A.3d 979 , cert. denied, 328 Conn. 936 , 183 A.3d 1175 (2018), on the ground that Shannon ‘‘did not testify as to a confession that the defendant made while they were fellow inmates.’’ State v. Jones, supra, 761.

2020The Appellate Court deter- mined that the defendant was not entitled to a jailhouse informant instruction pursuant to State v. Diaz, supra, 302 Conn. 101–102, and State v. Salmond, 179 Conn. App. 605 , 627–28, 180 A.3d 979 , cert. denied, 328 Conn. 936 , 183 A.3d 1175 (2018), on the ground that Shannon ‘‘did not testify as to a confession that the defendant made while they were fellow inmates.’’ State v. Jones, supra, 761.

2020The Appellate Court deter- mined that the defendant was not entitled to a jailhouse informant instruction pursuant to State v. Diaz, supra, 302 Conn. 101–102, and State v. Salmond, 179 Conn. App. 605 , 627–28, 180 A.3d 979 , cert. denied, 328 Conn. 936 , 183 A.3d 1175 (2018), on the ground that Shannon ‘‘did not testify as to a confession that the defendant made while they were fellow inmates.’’ State v. Jones, supra, 761.

2020The Appellate Court deter- mined that the defendant was not entitled to a jailhouse informant instruction pursuant to State v. Diaz, supra, 302 Conn. 101–102, and State v. Salmond, 179 Conn. App. 605 , 627–28, 180 A.3d 979 , cert. denied, 328 Conn. 936 , 183 A.3d 1175 (2018), on the ground that Shannon ‘‘did not testify as to a confession that the defendant made while they were fellow inmates.’’ State v. Jones, supra, 761.

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2017See, e.g., State v. Jamison , supra, 320 Conn. at 606 , 134 A.3d 560 ("we cannot conclude that the omission of the accomplice credibility instruction was so harmful that a failure to reverse the defendant's conviction ... would result in a manifest injustice"); State v. Diaz , 302 Conn. 93 , 103, 25 A.3d 594 (2011) ("the trial court's failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction ... does not constitute plain error when the trial court has instructed the jury on the credibility of witnesses and the jury is aware of the witness' motivation for testifying"); State v. Moore , 293

2011State v. Ebron, supra, 292 Conn. at 675-76 , 975 A.2d 17 .

2011State v. Ebron, supra, 292 Conn. at 675-76 , 975 A.2d 17 .

2009Specifically, we note that the Appellate Court recently has held that “the trial court’s failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction does not present the type of extraordinary situation that warrants plain error review”; State v. Joseph, 110 Conn. App. 454, 463 , 955 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 945 , 959 A.2d 1010 (2008); particularly when the court has instructed the jury generally on the credibility of witnesses.

2009Specifically, we note that the Appellate Court recently has held that “the trial court’s failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction does not present the type of extraordinary situation that warrants plain error review”; State v. Joseph, 110 Conn. App. 454, 463 , 955 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 945 , 959 A.2d 1010 (2008); particularly when the court has instructed the jury generally on the credibility of witnesses.

2009Specifically, we note that the Appellate Court recently has held that “the trial court’s failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction does not present the type of extraordinary situation that warrants plain error review”; State v. Joseph, 110 Conn. App. 454, 463 , 955 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 945 , 959 A.2d 1010 (2008); particularly when the court has instructed the jury generally on the credibility of witnesses.

2009Specifically, we note that the Appellate Court recently has held that “the trial court’s failure to give, sua sponte, a jailhouse informant instruction does not present the type of extraordinary situation that warrants plain error review”; State v. Joseph, 110 Conn. App. 454, 463 , 955 A.2d 124 , cert. denied, 289 Conn. 945 , 959 A.2d 1010 (2008); particularly when the court has instructed the jury generally on the credibility of witnesses.

2008This court already has concluded, however, that the rule announced in Patterson is not of constitutional dimension and, therefore, should not be given retroactive effect. 2 State v. Martinez, 95 Conn. App. 162 , 166 n.3, *463 896 A.2d 109 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 902 , 901 A.2d 1224 (2006); see also State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 246 , 941 A.2d 989 (Patterson claim fails under second prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), pertaining to appellate review of unpreserved claims of constitutional error), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).

2008This court already has concluded, however, that the rule announced in Patterson is not of constitutional dimension and, therefore, should not be given retroactive effect. 2 State v. Martinez, 95 Conn. App. 162 , 166 n.3, *463 896 A.2d 109 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 902 , 901 A.2d 1224 (2006); see also State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 246 , 941 A.2d 989 (Patterson claim fails under second prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), pertaining to appellate review of unpreserved claims of constitutional error), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).

2008This court already has concluded, however, that the rule announced in Patterson is not of constitutional dimension and, therefore, should not be given retroactive effect. 2 State v. Martinez, 95 Conn. App. 162 , 166 n.3, *463 896 A.2d 109 , cert. denied, 279 Conn. 902 , 901 A.2d 1224 (2006); see also State v. Gonzalez, 106 Conn. App. 238, 246 , 941 A.2d 989 (Patterson claim fails under second prong of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989), pertaining to appellate review of unpreserved claims of constitutional error), cert. denied, 287 Conn. 903 , 947 A.2d 343 (2008).