defendant next claims error in Connecticut

1988United States v. Telfaire, 469 F.2d 552 (D.C.

1987Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax District, 197 Conn. 82, 86 , 495 A.2d 1063 (1985). 5 The defendant next claims error in the court’s entering a default against him.

1987Stroiney v. Crescent Lake Tax District, 197 Conn. 82, 86 , 495 A.2d 1063 (1985). 5 The defendant next claims error in the court’s entering a default against him.

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 535 , 363 A.2d 1011 . *236 The defendant next claims error in the trial court’s denial of his request to charge the jury as to the meaning of “extreme indifference to human life” under General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (3) and in the court’s failure to define that term for the jury.

1978State v. Annunziato, 169 Conn. 517, 535 , 363 A.2d 1011 . *236 The defendant next claims error in the trial court’s denial of his request to charge the jury as to the meaning of “extreme indifference to human life” under General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (3) and in the court’s failure to define that term for the jury.

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1978If it is possible, then the lesser violation is not an included crime.” State v. Brown, 163 Conn. 52, 61-62 , 301 A.2d 547 ; State v. Neve, 174 Conn. 142 , *324 145, 384 A.2d 332 ; State v. Troynack, 174 Conn. 89, 97 , 384 A.2d 326 ; State v. Ruiz, 171 Conn. 264, 272 , 368 A.2d 222 .

1975The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: “The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut Greneral Statutes.” The basis of the defendant’s claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden o

1975The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: “The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut Greneral Statutes.” The basis of the defendant’s claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden o

1975The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: “The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut Greneral Statutes.” The basis of the defendant’s claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden o

1975The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: “The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut Greneral Statutes.” The basis of the defendant’s claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden o

1975A similar argument was put forth and rejected recently in State v. Smith, 167 Conn. 328, 331-33 , 355 A.2d 257 , and we adhere to our reasoning in that decision and find no error in the court’s failure to give this instruction as requested.

1975A similar argument was put forth and rejected recently in State v. Smith, 167 Conn. 328, 331-33 , 355 A.2d 257 , and we adhere to our reasoning in that decision and find no error in the court’s failure to give this instruction as requested.

1975The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: “The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut Greneral Statutes.” The basis of the defendant’s claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden o

1975The defendant next claims error in the following ruling made by the trial court: “The defendant is ordered confined to the Connecticut Valley Hospital until such time as he is no longer mentally ill, to the extent that his release would constitute a danger to himself or others, provided that the total period of his confinement shall not exceed twenty-five years, all in conformity with § 53a-47 of the Connecticut Greneral Statutes.” The basis of the defendant’s claim is that such a ruling is not supported by the facts of the case and that the proof offered by the state did not meet the burden o

1974The defendant argues that prior to making the incriminating statement, he had not effectively waived his rights recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.

1974The defendant argues that prior to making the incriminating statement, he had not effectively waived his rights recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S. Ct. 1602 , 16 L.