Golding analysis in Connecticut

2025Moreover, he further testified that he could ‘‘honestly say that [he] did not do that to [L] . . . because [he knew he] wouldn’t.’’ Shortly there- after, the following colloquy between the prosecutor and the defendant took place: 18 ‘‘[U]nder settled law, a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecu- torial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mauri

2025Moreover, he further testified that he could ‘‘honestly say that [he] did not do that to [L] . . . because [he knew he] wouldn’t.’’ Shortly there- after, the following colloquy between the prosecutor and the defendant took place: 18 ‘‘[U]nder settled law, a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecu- torial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Mauri

2020There being no practical significance, therefore, for engaging in a Golding analysis of an insufficiency of the evidence claim, we will review the defendant’s challenge to his conviction . . . as we do any prop- erly preserved claim.’ State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270 , 276 n.3, 623 A.2d 42 (1993).’’).

2020There being no practical significance, therefore, for engaging in a Golding analysis of an insufficiency of the evidence claim, we will review the defendant’s challenge to his conviction . . . as we do any prop- erly preserved claim.’ State v. Adams, 225 Conn. 270 , 276 n.3, 623 A.2d 42 (1993).’’).

2024Once the defendant has done so, ‘‘the burden is then on the state to prove that the impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Id. ‘‘[A] defendant who fails to preserve claims of prose- cutorial misconduct need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding], and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four- pronged Golding test.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id., 560 .

2024Once the defendant has done so, ‘‘the burden is then on the state to prove that the impropriety was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.’’ Id. ‘‘[A] defendant who fails to preserve claims of prose- cutorial misconduct need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding], and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four- pronged Golding test.’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) Id., 560 .

2012In reviewing unpreserved claims under Golding, we have held that “[a] defendant in a criminal prosecution may waive one or more of his or her fundamental rights.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469, 478 , 915 A.2d 872 (2007). 15 “[A] constitutional claim that has been waived does not *368 satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party ... or that the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .”

2012In reviewing unpreserved claims under Golding, we have held that “[a] defendant in a criminal prosecution may waive one or more of his or her fundamental rights.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fabricatore, 281 Conn. 469, 478 , 915 A.2d 872 (2007). 15 “[A] constitutional claim that has been waived does not *368 satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party ... or that the alleged constitutional violation clearly exists and clearly deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .”

2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011).

2026“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, [whereas] the last two steps involve the merits of the claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carlos G., 354 Conn. 21, 26 , 349 A.3d 1 (2026). 4 The state does not argue that the defendant has implicitly waived any challenge to the trial court’s instructions pursuant to State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 482–83, 10 A.3d 942 (2011).

2018"In State v. Stevenson, [ 269 Conn. 563 , 572-73, 849 A.2d 626 (2004) ], our Supreme Court held that, in cases of claimed prosecutorial impropriety, it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test....

2018"In State v. Stevenson, [ 269 Conn. 563 , 572-73, 849 A.2d 626 (2004) ], our Supreme Court held that, in cases of claimed prosecutorial impropriety, it is unnecessary for the defendant to seek to prevail under the specific requirements of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), and, similarly, it is unnecessary for a reviewing court to apply the four-pronged Golding test....

2023See, e.g., State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 , 448–49, 988 A.2d 167 (2009) (‘‘[a] constitutional claim that has been waived does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial’’ (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 This court has made clear that the Connecticut Code of Evidence func- tions analogously: ‘‘Much like the Federal Rules of Evidence, under our Co

2023See, e.g., State v. Hampton, 293 Conn. 435 , 448–49, 988 A.2d 167 (2009) (‘‘[a] constitutional claim that has been waived does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot conclude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial’’ (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted)). 6 This court has made clear that the Connecticut Code of Evidence func- tions analogously: ‘‘Much like the Federal Rules of Evidence, under our Co

2012Both Oliveras and Uretek, Inc., discussed the reviewability of an unpre-served claim asserting a lack of proof of corpus delicti under the pre-Golding standard set forth in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

2012Both Oliveras and Uretek, Inc., discussed the reviewability of an unpre-served claim asserting a lack of proof of corpus delicti under the pre-Golding standard set forth in State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61 , 327 A.2d 576 (1973).

2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).

2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).

2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).

2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).

2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).

2009“The first two steps in the Golding analysis address the reviewability of the claim, whereas the last two steps address the merits of the claim.” State v. Cohens, 62 Conn. App. 345, 350 , 773 A.2d 363 , cert. denied, 256 Conn. 918 , 774 A.2d 139 (2001).

2025The prosecutor then presented Rivera with the photographs of the defendant that Rivera had signed during Rivera’s second June 24, 2025 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 22 352 Conn. 183 JUNE, 2025 21 State v. Hinton ‘‘A waived claim, as opposed to an unpreserved claim, does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot con- clude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Culbrea

2025The prosecutor then presented Rivera with the photographs of the defendant that Rivera had signed during Rivera’s second June 24, 2025 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 22 352 Conn. 183 JUNE, 2025 21 State v. Hinton ‘‘A waived claim, as opposed to an unpreserved claim, does not satisfy the third prong of the Golding test because, in such circumstances, we simply cannot con- clude that injustice [has been] done to either party . . . or that the alleged constitutional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Culbrea

2021Because these claims require the application of distinct legal principles, we address them separately in this opinion. 10 In light of the Appellate Court’s express application of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), to the claims raised by the defen- dant; see State v. Gonzalez, supra, 188 Conn. App. 318–19; we take this opportunity to reiterate that ‘‘a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding] an

2021Because these claims require the application of distinct legal principles, we address them separately in this opinion. 10 In light of the Appellate Court’s express application of State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 , 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified by In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773 , 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015), to the claims raised by the defen- dant; see State v. Gonzalez, supra, 188 Conn. App. 318–19; we take this opportunity to reiterate that ‘‘a defendant who fails to preserve claims of prosecutorial [impropriety] need not seek to prevail under the specific requirements of [Golding] an

2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis.

2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis.

2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis.

2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis.

2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis.

2008See State v. Williams, 60 Conn. App. 575, 577-78 , 760 A.2d 948 , cert. denied, 255 Conn. 922 , 763 A.2d 1043 (2000). 6 The Falcon court, however, did not first invoke its supervisory powers to reach the constitutional claims under the Golding analysis.