model jury instruction in Connecticut

2022The language that the defen- dant requested be added to the model jury instruction— i.e., that the jury may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case—would have similarly apprised the jury of the defendant’s right to present an investigative inad- equacy defense and the jury’s right to consider it in evaluating the strength of the state’s case.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 853–54 (citing State v. Collins, supra, 299 Conn. 567 ; State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 363 A.2d 72 (1975

2022The language that the defen- dant requested be added to the model jury instruction— i.e., that the jury may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case—would have similarly apprised the jury of the defendant’s right to present an investigative inad- equacy defense and the jury’s right to consider it in evaluating the strength of the state’s case.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 853–54 (citing State v. Collins, supra, 299 Conn. 567 ; State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 363 A.2d 72 (1975

2022The language that the defen- dant requested be added to the model jury instruction— i.e., that the jury may consider evidence of the police investigation as it might relate to any weaknesses in the state’s case—would have similarly apprised the jury of the defendant’s right to present an investigative inad- equacy defense and the jury’s right to consider it in evaluating the strength of the state’s case.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 853–54 (citing State v. Collins, supra, 299 Conn. 567 ; State v. Williams, 169 Conn. 322 , 363 A.2d 72 (1975

2021In reaching its conclusion, the Appellate Court noted that the trial court’s instruction was identical to the model jury instruction provided on the Judicial Branch website and consistent with investigative inadequacy instruc- tions approved by this court in State v. Collins ( 299 Conn. 567 ) and State v. Williams ( 169 Conn. 322 ).

2019In the present case, the defendant relies on State v. Wright, 322 Conn. 270 , 140 A.3d 939 (2016), in support of his claim.15 Specifically, he argues that the present case is distinguishable from Collins, Williams, Nieves and Tate ‘‘because of [Wright’s] clear recognition of investigative omission/adequacy defenses . . . .’’ In addition, he argues that ‘‘the instruction as given here is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in [Wright]’’ and that ‘‘the model jury instruction did not adequately tell the jury how it could use the investiga- tive omission or inadequacy evidence in light o

2019In the present case, the defendant relies on State v. Wright, 322 Conn. 270 , 140 A.3d 939 (2016), in support of his claim.15 Specifically, he argues that the present case is distinguishable from Collins, Williams, Nieves and Tate ‘‘because of [Wright’s] clear recognition of investigative omission/adequacy defenses . . . .’’ In addition, he argues that ‘‘the instruction as given here is in conflict with the Supreme Court’s decision in [Wright]’’ and that ‘‘the model jury instruction did not adequately tell the jury how it could use the investiga- tive omission or inadequacy evidence in light o

2025We do not find these cases pertinent to the issue before us—whether the trial court committed plain error in failing to provide the jury with an instruction on nonpercipient witness identifications. 25 Although we reject this claim and decline to invoke the ‘‘extraordinary remedy’’; (emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Carlson, 226 Conn. App. 514, 546 , 318 A.3d 283 , cert. denied, 350 Conn. 911 , 324 A.3d 143 (2024); of exercising our supervisory authority in the manner requested by the defendant, we encourage the Judicial Branch’s Criminal Jury Instruction Commit

2022During the pendency of the defendant’s appeal, our Supreme Court issued its decision in State v. Gomes ( 337 Conn. 826 ), in which it held that the model jury instruction improperly failed to inform the jury of a defendant’s right to present evidence of investigative inadequacy and the jury’s right to consider such deficiencies in evaluating whether the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

2021State v. Aquino ( 279 Conn. 293 ), to the extent that it held that a defendant’s deportation during the pendency of his or her appeal renders the appeal moot when the record does not disclose whether the defendant’s guilty plea was the sole reason for his deportation, overruled.

2019As our Supreme Court has noted, ‘‘[w]hile not dispositive of the adequacy of the [jury] instruction, an instruction’s uniformity with the model instructions is a relevant and persuasive factor in our analysis . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 , 688 n.27, 975 A.2d 17 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 472–73, 10 A.3d 942 (2011); see also State v. Shenkman, 154 Conn. App. 45 , 75, 104 A.3d 780 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 921 , 107 A.3d 959 (2015).

2019As our Supreme Court has noted, ‘‘[w]hile not dispositive of the adequacy of the [jury] instruction, an instruction’s uniformity with the model instructions is a relevant and persuasive factor in our analysis . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 , 688 n.27, 975 A.2d 17 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 472–73, 10 A.3d 942 (2011); see also State v. Shenkman, 154 Conn. App. 45 , 75, 104 A.3d 780 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 921 , 107 A.3d 959 (2015).

2019As our Supreme Court has noted, ‘‘[w]hile not dispositive of the adequacy of the [jury] instruction, an instruction’s uniformity with the model instructions is a relevant and persuasive factor in our analysis . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 , 688 n.27, 975 A.2d 17 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 472–73, 10 A.3d 942 (2011); see also State v. Shenkman, 154 Conn. App. 45 , 75, 104 A.3d 780 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 921 , 107 A.3d 959 (2015).

2019As our Supreme Court has noted, ‘‘[w]hile not dispositive of the adequacy of the [jury] instruction, an instruction’s uniformity with the model instructions is a relevant and persuasive factor in our analysis . . . .’’ (Internal quotation marks omit- ted.) State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 , 688 n.27, 975 A.2d 17 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 , 472–73, 10 A.3d 942 (2011); see also State v. Shenkman, 154 Conn. App. 45 , 75, 104 A.3d 780 (2014), cert. denied, 315 Conn. 921 , 107 A.3d 959 (2015).

2014See, e.g., State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640 , 653–54, 11 A.3d 663 (2011); State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 , 67–69, 644 A.2d 887 (1994). 13 We note that the defendant in this appeal does not challenge the suffi- ciency of the evidence with respect to any of his convictions. 14 As the model jury instruction for § 53a-62 (a) (1) from the Judicial Branch website explains: ‘‘A threat is the expression of an intention to injure another person.

2014See, e.g., State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640 , 653–54, 11 A.3d 663 (2011); State v. Kulmac, 230 Conn. 43 , 67–69, 644 A.2d 887 (1994). 13 We note that the defendant in this appeal does not challenge the suffi- ciency of the evidence with respect to any of his convictions. 14 As the model jury instruction for § 53a-62 (a) (1) from the Judicial Branch website explains: ‘‘A threat is the expression of an intention to injure another person.