Constitution of Connecticut (2025 publisher edition) — Amendment XXIX

Publisher edition notice: The publisher identifies this compilation as revised to January 1, 2025. It preserves the annotated original 1965 text and all ratified amendments, alongside the Revisors' unofficial convenience version incorporating extant amendments. The latter does not supersede the original Constitution and amendments; later changes have not been independently verified.

Amendment XXIX Ratified amendment and publisher annotations.

ARTICLE XXIX.*
*Adopted November 27, 1996.
A prosecution for a common law offense does not require an indictment. 3 C. 122; 60 C. 94. There is no right of trial
by jury before a justice of the peace. 4 C. 78; 12 C. 451. Meaning of “indictment or information.” 12 C. 451. Accused
has no constitutional right to be present before grand jury. 21 C. 279; 47 C. 104. Law requires one on trial for intoxication
to disclose how he obtained liquor, upheld; 59 C. 520; so one providing for restraint of parent abandoning child. 35 C.
540. Penalties should be held excessive only in very clear cases. 39 C. 497. A statute authorizing the appointment of a
receiver of partnership without notice to partners would not be valid. 41 C. 307. Regulations permitting sale of life estate
against remonstrance of remaindermen is valid. 44 C. 116. Arguments of counsel may properly be limited. 47 C. 535.
The legislature may regulate the conduct of jury trials. 48 C. 546. There is no right to trial by jury before county com-
missioners as to revocation of a liquor license. 50 C. 324. Statute making owner of vehicle liable for injury done by
servant, upheld. 51 C. 468. Statute making railroad company liable for fire set by locomotive without regard to negli-
gence, upheld. 54 C. 459. A judge may grant a new trial for verdict against the evidence. 65 C. 278; 69 C. 186; 72 C. 109;
74 C. 638; 79 C. 481. Admission of evidence against accused secured by trespass does not violate this provision. 67 C.
304; 101 C. 231; 120 C. 573. Bail in general, taking it pending appeal. 71 C. 461; see 65 C. 282. Power of court to restrict
counsel from commenting on severe penalty provided for offense. 75 C. 55. Cited. 287 U.S. 62. Requires written charges
and notice in proceeding for contempt not committed in presence of court. 75 C. 354. Law penalizing the keeping of a
house “reputed” to be one of ill-fame, upheld. 82 C. 112; 83 C. 56; Id., 551; see 47 C. 550. Penalty of $1,000 fine for
violation of usury law held not excessive. 83 C. 3. Nature of power to fix amount and to take bail. 83 C. 286. Cautioning
accused that statements will be used against him. 92 C. 67, 82. How far state’s attorney may comment on counsel’s
failure to explain incriminating evidence introduced by prosecution; 96 C. 292; where accused takes the stand himself.
105 C. 119. Admission of testimony given by a witness at a preliminary hearing on same charge, where accused had had
opportunity to cross-examine and witness had escaped from detention before trial in upper court and could not be lo-
cated, held not error. 96 C. 310. Statute making admissible a certified copy of analysis of liquor by a state chemist, up-
held. 103 C. 513. Common law exceptions to hearsay rule not affected. Id. Statute making owner of dog liable for injuries
caused by it, upheld. 105 C. 90. After acquittal and discharge accused cannot be tried again for same offense. 106 C. 116.
Requirements for jurisdiction when obtained by garnishment stated and applied. 107 C. 554. Refusal to try issue of fact
on a plea to jurisdiction after demurrer thereto sustained, upheld. Id., 560. To require accused to give testimony tending
to prove his divorce was colorable violates this clause. 110 C. 356 (Diss. Op.). Danger of incrimination must be real, not
remote; privilege must be claimed as to specific questions. Id., 482. Statute authorizing summary commitment by justice
for refusal to testify in investigation is valid. Id., 490–500. Cited. 113 C. 377. Right to bill of particulars where informa-
tion charges offense merely by name or definition. 119 C. 72, 73; 124 C. 561. Provision of Tenement House Act forbid-
ding recovery of rent for unlawful occupation does not impose “fine.” 121 C. 459. State’s right to appeal criminal case is
not unconstitutional. 122 C. 538. Does not protect person being questioned by grand jury, but only gives immunity from
answering particular questions. 126 C. 73. Statute limiting signs advertising price of gasoline held invalid. Id., 373.
Statute forbidding drugs, articles or instruments to prevent conception is constitutional. Id., 412–426. Not mandatory to
specify maximum fine in penal statute. Id., 426. Filing of original information without preliminary hearing upheld. 127
C. 581. Does not require trial within territorial subdivision in which offense was committed. 129 C. 572. Penalty of $50
for each rent overcharged under Price Control Act is not unconstitutional. 131 C. 132; 132 C. 64. Does not require that
one arrested for crime shall be promptly taken before a committing magistrate. 136 C. 113. Legislature itself may exer-
cise power of eminent domain or it may delegate it to another agency to determine what property is necessary for the
public use. 138 C. 582. A provision in a will that widow should receive a stipulated amount either by order for widow’s
allowance or by way of a bequest, held constitutional. 139 C. 652. Short form information authorized by rule (P.B. 493)
does not infringe as rule (P.B. 495) provides for bill of particulars. 141 C. 319. Cited. 143 C. 698. Guarantees as a polit-
ical right the institution of jury trial in all its essential features as derived from our ancestors and now existing by force
of common law, but this right may be subjected to conditions and regulations of procedure for the better promotion of
justice and the public welfare so long as the substance of the right is not adversely affected or the exercise of the right is
not prevented. 144 C. 228. Requires an indictment by a grand jury in all cases in which the penalty to be imposed may
be life imprisonment. Id., 295. Injured defendant required to attend court on stretcher and under some medication, not
denied due process. 145 C. 11. Definition of fair trial. Id. Definition of speedy trial. Id. Jury recommendation for life
imprisonment under Sec. 53-10 not violation of due process. Id., 60. The terms of a penal statute must be sufficiently
explicit to inform those subject to it what conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties. 146 C. 78. Whether
knowledge is a necessary element in proving that a prohibited act is a crime is a matter of legislative intention. Id. Grand
jury in which 7 out of 18 are attorneys, not in itself illegal where there is no evidence of an intentional and systematic
exclusion of any group. Id., 137. Defendant not denied a fair trial when he did not have and did not request counsel on

-- 71 of 129 --

214 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
his presentation in police court. Id., 227. Act authorizing an administrative board to make orders but which has no pro-
vision for judicial review, held constitutional as the aggrieved party’s right to due process is protected by his privilege to
apply to a court. Id., 237. No definition of public use for the purpose of eminent domain can be large enough to include
any private use. Id. Zoning regulations forbidding the operation of trailer parks in residential zones held valid. Id., 311.
Right to a speedy trial may be waived where a defendant consents to delay or both prosecution and defense agree upon
postponement, and waiver may be implied where the defendant, in court, interposes no objection to a continuance. 147
C. 22. Circumstances determine whether defendant has been denied a speedy trial. Id., 95. Refusal of court to allow de-
fendant to cross-examine probation officer who prepared a presentence investigation held not to violate this section. Id.,
125. When refusal to engage counsel for pretrial proceedings violates due process. Id., 194. Voluntariness of confession
of accused under detention. Id. Where one act constitutes several crimes there may be a separate prosecution for each.
Id., 426. Cited. 149 C. 572. Constitutional right of accused in a criminal case to have assistance of counsel may be
waived, if it is waived intelligently, understandably and in a competent manner. Defendant’s unsubstantiated attacks on
the two public defenders concerned in the case, and on public defenders in general, were without merit, and appointment
of a special public defender would not be justified. Id., 655. There is no specific provision against double jeopardy in the
Connecticut Constitution, but we have in large part adopted the common-law rule against it as necessary to the due
process guaranteed by this section. Secs. 51-195 and 51-196 subject certain sentences to possibility of review if re-
quested by the person sentenced. The jeopardy, so far as the sentence is concerned, is a single continuing one, and any
change in the sentence results from the sentenced person’s own voluntary act. There is no double jeopardy. Id., 692. In
order to hold zoning regulation unconstitutional as violative of due process of law, it must appear that the provisions are
clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare.
Id., 712. A witness is not justified in refusing to answer a question on ground of self-incrimination unless it appears that
there is reasonable ground to apprehend danger of incrimination, and that the danger is not a mere remote possibility. The
determination that there is such a danger cannot be left solely to the judgment of the witness. The witness should not,
however, be required completely to explain the precise basis of his apprehension of danger and thus provide “leads” to
evidence for future use against him. Where the state opposes a claim of privilege against self-incrimination on the ground
of immunity from possible punishment, the state has the burden of proving the adequacy of the immunity claimed. 150
C. 220. Even if accused waives his privilege against self-incrimination by voluntarily testifying, the waiver is limited to
the particular proceeding on which he volunteers the testimony. 153 C. 34. Use, in second part of information, over de-
fendant’s objection, of testimony as to prior conviction which was given in first part of information, was a violation of
his constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination. Id. Where imposition of sentence upon witness
against defendant was delayed until after his trial, defendant’s claim that he was thereby deprived of his constitutional
right to a fair trial was without merit. Id., 79, 80. Fact that court-appointed appraisers in foreclosure action not required
to hold hearings and take evidence not violative of due process. Id., 293. Cited. Id., 324. There is no federal constitutional
impediment to dispensing entirely with the grand jury in state prosecutions. Id., 451, 457. Whether an accused has been
denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial depends on the facts in a particular case. Id., 564, 569–571. Appellant,
claiming that proposed zoning amendments would deprive him of use of his property, was entitled to introduce additional
evidence on constitutional question in court to which appeal was taken. 155 C. 265. Admissibility in evidence of state-
ments made during illegal detention depends on voluntariness thereof and whether it was brought about by, or fruit of,
illegal detention. Id., 316. Where defendant, represented by counsel, did not at any time before trial date raise question
of speedy trial or claim trial and did not claim to be prejudiced by delay, present claim that he was denied guarantee to a
speedy trial is without merit. Id., 367. No federal constitutional impediment to dispensing entirely with grand jury in
state prosecutions. Id. Prosecution by information in case of infamous crimes is not violation of defendant’s rights under
U.S. Constitution. 156 C. 391. Speedy trial means state must proceed without unreasonable or undue delay and under
facts of this case there was no denial of right as intervals were necessary to prepare trial proceedings. 157 C. 114. Charge
concerning defendant’s right not to testify was correct taken as a whole. 158 C. 412. In all cases, even capital ones, not
falling in the exceptional situation “where the proof is evident or the presumption great,” bail should be ordered. A grand
jury indictment where defendant was excluded from the jury room was not sufficient to put this defendant in the excep-
tion “where the proof is evident”. 159 C. 264. That crime is punishable by death sufficient to bring the accused within
the exception disentitling him to bail. Id., 285. Indictment for a capital offense when the defendants were not allowed in
the grand jury room during the grand jury hearing is not sufficient evidential weight to shift the burden of proof from the
state to show the proof was “evident or the presumption great” so bail would be denied. Id. Cited. 162 C. 316. The cre-
ation of new rights to insure a fair trial is an appropriate exercise of legislative power. 166 C. 501 (Diss. Op.). Taxation
of the exercise and nonexercise, after enactment of tax of a power of appointment created prior to enactment of tax is not
unconstitutional. Id., 581. Sec. 14-66 is a proper exercise of the police power of the state as it serves the safety and wel-
fare of the motoring public. 167 C. 304. Procedural due process not violated where, absent specific provisions in munic-
ipal charter for removal, the mayor removed the chairman of board of finance in manner mirroring method of his ap-
pointment. Id., 357. Cited. Id., 379; Id., 408. Procedure for relief against excessive bail set under a bench warrant accords
with due process requirements. Id., 539. Second mortgagee has no standing to attack attachments and judgments in
distribution of proceeds of first mortgage foreclosure. He does not stand in mortgagor’s shoes to claim latter’s constitu-
tional rights. 168 C. 43. Plaintiff who waived counsel after ample notification he was entitled to counsel cannot claim on
appeal denial of due process at hearing. Id., 94. Sec. 14-111(c) draws a reasonable distinction based on public policy in
requiring suspension of licenses only of those careless drivers contributing to accident causing death. Id. To determine
whether procedural due process requirements apply, the court must first determine whether a party has been deprived of
liberty or property by some action of the government, furthermore, in making this determination, the court must look not
to the weight but to the nature of the interest at stake, any weighing process being relevant only to a determination of the
form of hearing required in particular situations. Id., 478. Cited. 169 C. 267, 305. Defendant’s right to compel testimony
must give way to witness’ privilege against self-incrimination in case where no timely exception was taken; when privi-
lege may be invoked; there is no basis for granting immunity from prosecution to witness for defense. 170 C. 206. Tax
imposed on basis of domicile but enacted subsequent to abandonment of such domicile does not violate due process. Id.,

-- 72 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 215
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
567. Cited. 171 C. 269; Id., 705; 172 C. 458; Id., 531; Id., 577. Testimony of state’s chief toxicologist, based partly on
test by chemist under his supervision, did not violate defendant’s right to confront witnesses against him. Id., 593. Dis-
cussed. 173 C. 165. Cited. Id., 317; Id., 473; Id., 506. Whether right to speedy trial was denied must be determined by
application of balancing test. 174 C. 89. Cited. Id.; 175 C. 147. Loss of evidence under circumstances of case did not
violate defendant’s right to fair trial or deprive him of due process of law. Id., 315. Cited. Id., 512; 176 C. 270; 177 C.
78; Id., 304; Id., 648; Id., 677; 178 C. 67; Id., 145; Id., 163; Id., 600; 179 C. 1; Id., 46. City has sufficient standing to raise
constitutionality of procedures employed by department of environmental protection. Id., 111. Cited. Id., 155; 180 C. 54.
Right to impeach the credibility of the state’s eyewitness to the crime implicates defendant’s constitutional right to con-
front the witness who testify against him. Id., 382. Where defendant was indicted for murder, the court’s charge on the
lesser offenses of manslaughter and negligent homicide, which do not require the same state of mind as murder, did not
violate his right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Id. Sixteen month delay was not
unreasonable per se and was not a deprivation of the right to a speedy trial since defendant acquiesced in delay for eleven
months. Id., 589. Discussion of due process in connection with discharge of tenured teacher. 181 C. 69. Cited. Id., 151.
Constitutional rights in connection with grand jury proceedings discussed. Id., 268. Cited. 182 C. 124; Id., 220. Consti-
tution does not guarantee a criminal defendant a right to a nonjury trial. Id., 353. Cited. Id., 403. State, over defendant’s
objection, seeking to have a trial closed must demonstrate a compelling need in order to deny his right to public trial. Id.,
412. It is error of constitutional magnitude for judge to instruct jurors that they may discuss the case among themselves
prior to its submission to them. Id., 419. Cited. Id., 497; Id., 511; Id., 585; part of ruling in State v. Jacobowitz overruled,
see 224 C. 1. “Void for vagueness” and burden of proof charge to jury discussed. 183 C. 17. Cited. Id., 73. Waiver of
“Miranda” rights discussed. Id., 280. Cited. Id., 394; 184 C. 121. Inadequate pretrial investigation is sufficient to consti-
tute a denial of the right to effective assistance of counsel. Id., 547. Cited. Id., 597; 185 C. 63; Id., 118; Id., 163. Right to
speedy trial discussed. Id., 199. Cited. Id., 211; Id., 402; Id., 495. Discussion of hearsay rules and the confrontation
clause. 186 C. 521. Discussion of sufficiency of court’s instruction. Id., 555. Cited. Id., 574; Id., 654. Due process cited.
Id., 725; Id., 773. Cited. 187 C. 6, 11. Due process cited. Id., 53; Id., 73. Fair trial cited. Id., 94. Due process cited. Id.,
109; Id., 144. Fair trial cited. Id., 199; Id., 216. Right to notice cited. Id. Right of cross-examination cited. Id., 264. Right
of confrontation cited. Id. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation cited. Id. Right of confrontation
cited. Id., 281. Right to counsel cited. Id. Defendant was not denied her constitutional right of confrontation by the state’s
failure to call as a witness the state chemist who had actually performed the toxicological tests on the narcotics found in
her possession. Id., 292. Right of accused to testify cited. Id. Introduction of new relevant evidence in rebuttal discussed.
Id., 335. Identification procedure discussed. Id., 348. Due process rights in parental rights termination proceedings dis-
cussed. Id., 431. Right to speedy and public trial cited. Id., 469. Right to confront witnesses discussed. Id. Right to re-
main silent discussed. Id. Although due process is not intended to hold administrative agencies under a short leash it is
designed to restrain them from roaming at will over the adjudicative landscape. Id., 476. Right to remain silent cited. Id.,
504. Due process cited. Id., 513. Right to counsel cited. Id. Right against self-incrimination cited. Id. Cited. 188 C. 336;
Id., 354; Id., 515; Id., 542; Id., 626; Id. 653. Right to jury trial discussed. Id., 697. Cited. 189 C. 337; Id., 364; Id., 631;
190 C. 20. Waiver of “Miranda” rights discussed. Id., 104. Cited. Id., 143. Due process and liberty interests discussed.
Id., 327. Cited. Id., 496; Id., 541; Id., 594; Id., 822; 191 C. 27; Id., 37. Statements obtained in violation of privacy re-
quired to effectuate “Miranda” rights may not be admitted into evidence in the case in chief without violating due process
right to fair trial; 159 C. 385 overruled. Id. Cited. 191 C. 142; Id., 146; Id., 233; Id., 412; Id., 545; Id., 604; Id., 622; 192
C. 37. Denial of defendant’s motion for inspection of certain psychiatric records discussed. Id., 166. Fairness and due
process discussed. Id., 618. Constitutional right to probable cause hearing took effect May 26, 1983, being the effective
date of implementing legislation. Statutory provisions for grand jury, Sec. 54-45, remained in effect until that time. Right
to probable cause hearing vested immediately on that date for all unindicted defendants; amendment was not fully
self-executing. Id., 671. Cited. Id., 700; Id., 704. Right to speedy trial factors discussed. Id., 739. Cited. 193 C. 70; Id.,
93; Id., 144. Due process cited. Id. Unconstitutional procedures; constitutionally acceptable practice; constitutional
principles, cited; admissibility of identification evidence discussed. Id., 238. Cited. Id., 270. Effective assistance of
counsel; inadequacy of counsel; due process, constitutional claims and right to counsel cited. Id., 333. Right to confron-
tation and to compel testimony of witnesses; due process; fair trial and present own defense cited. Id., 350. Cited. Id.,
439. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 457. Right to due process cited. Id. Under provision
against self-incrimination, right to “no adverse inference” instruction request reaffirmed; question of harmless error for
failure to instruct discussed. Id., 474. Cited. Id. Constitutional right to a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 526. Right to effec-
tive assistance of counsel; due process and privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 632. Constitutional
right to a fair trial and due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 646. “Miranda” rights cited. Id. Due process cited. Id. Fair trial
cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 670. Taking of wax impressions and photographs of teeth are not denial of right against
self-incrimination. Id., 695. Right to impartial jury cited; right to confrontation, cross-examination and counsel cited. Id.
Cited. 194 C. 96. Right to a speedy trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 165. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 213; Id., 223; Id., 233;
Id., 245. Constitutional right against self-incrimination cited. Id. Admission of testimony of defendant’s refusal to make
written statement after being given “Miranda” warnings discussed. Id., 258. Constitutional right of a defendant to testify
does not permit him to give testimony in disregard of the rules of evidence. Id., 361. Right to be heard by himself cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 408. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Equal protection and due process challenges to composition
of grand jury differentiated and discussed. Id., 416. Fair cross-section claim cited. Id. Due process challenge cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 438. Constitutional right of fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 483. Fair trial cited. Id. Claims of appellate delay arise
under this constitutional guaranty. Id. 510. Cited. Id., 530. Denial of fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 573. Deprivation of
constitutional right to fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 589. Substantive due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 594. Right not to
testify cited. Id. Cited. Id., 617. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 623. Fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 692; 195 C. 128. Constitutional right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 160. Denial
of due process cited. Id. “Miranda” warnings cited. Id., 232. Cited. Id., 284; Id., 421. Fair trial, due process and impartial
jury cited. Id. Confrontation clause of state constitution cited. Id. Right to due process and fair trial cited. Id., 444.
Speedy trial rights and due process cited. Id., 461. State constitution compulsory process and due process clauses cited;

-- 73 of 129 --

216 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
right to confrontation cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited; right to fair trial cited. Id., 475. Cited. Id., 496. Due
process rights cited. Id. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 505. Fundamental constitutional right
to be released on bail cited. Id. Cited. Id., 534. Due process cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel and due process
cited. Id., 561. Due process cited. Id., 598. Cited. Id., 611. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 624. “Miranda” rights, con-
stitutional privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id. Suppression of allegedly incriminating statements cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 636. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Prosecutor’s summation violated due process. 196 C. 32. Due
process cited. Id.; Id., 157. Due process rights cited. Id., 289. Cited. Id., 309. Due process cited. Id. Violation of due
process rights cited. Id., 395. “When jury instruction is challenged ... as constitutionally deficient in fundamental respect
the challenge can succeed only if it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the instruction into misunderstand-
ing an issue that has fundamental constitutional significance.” Id., 430. Cited. Id., 557. Court announced that “habeas
corpus is the preferred route for review of convictions challenged solely on the grounds of inadequate assistance of
counsel”. Id., 567. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Inadequate assistance of counsel cited. Id. Constitu-
tional right to impartial jury cited. Id., 667. Cited. Id., 655. Due process cited. Id. Cruel and unusual punishment cited.
Id. Due process cited. Id., 667. Cited. 197 C. 50; Id., 60. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 67. A criminal defendant
waives his privilege against self-incrimination when he places his mental status in issue, although federal and state con-
stitutions ordinarily protect an accused against compulsory submission to psychiatric examination. Id., 106. Cited. Id.,
115. Due process and effective assistance of counsel cited; fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 180. Right under state constitu-
tion coextensive with rights under federal constitution (fifth and sixth amendments) cited. Id. Fundamental constitutional
right and a fair trial cited. Id., 180. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 201. Due process cited. Id., 247. Right to
cross-examine witnesses cited. Id., 280. Due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 298. Right to due process cited. Id., 309.
Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Constitutional right to an impartial jury cited. Id., 314. Requirement of a fair
trial cited; due process cited. Id., 326. Due process cited; right to confront accusers cited; right to effective assistance of
counsel cited. Id. 337. Right against compulsory self-incrimination cited; assistance of counsel cited; confrontation right
cited. Id., 358. Section does not guarantee the right to hybrid representation. Id., 369. Right to assistance of counsel cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 413; Id., 507; Id., 507; Id., 554; Id., 574. Due process cited. Id. Fairness of trial cited. Id. Privilege against
self-incrimination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 588; Id., 595. Due process cited. Id. Fundamental right and fair trial cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 602. Fundamental constitutional right to liberty cited. Id. Due process cited; right to impartial jury cited. Id.,
629. Cited. Id., 644. Due process clause cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id., 666. Fair trial cited; due process cited; right
not to testify cited. Id., 677. Right to a fair trial cited, right to due process cited; right to remain silent cited. Id., 685. Right
to a public trial. Id., 698. Right to trial by impartial jury cited; right to a fair trial cited; due process cited. 198 C. 1. Right
to trial by impartial jury cited; right to fair trial cited; due process cited. Id. Fair trial cited. Id., 23. Due process cited. Id.,
43; Id.; 68. Cited. Id., 77. Fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited; due process cited; assistance of counsel
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 92; Id., 111. Right to confront witnesses against cited; due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 124. Fair trial
cited; assistance of counsel cited; privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id.,
147. Fundamental right and a fair trial cited; due process cited; right to confrontation cited. Id., 190. Fundamental con-
stitutional right and a fair trial cited; due process cited. Id., 209. Court held “an illegal arrest imposes no jurisdictional
barrier to a defendant’s subsequent prosecution” and overruled 153 C. 127 to the extent that it holds to the contrary. Id.,
255. Cited. Id., 273. Right to testify cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 285. Due process rights cited;
fundamental constitutional right cited. Id. Fair trial and due process cited. Id., 328. “Although the Connecticut Constitu-
tion contains no specific double jeopardy provision, the due process guarantees of article first, section 8 have been held
to include such a protection.” Id., 369. Cited. Id., 397. Fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited; due process
cited. Id. Right to speedy trial cited; due process cited. Id., 435. Right to testify cited; due process right to present effec-
tive defense cited. Id., 454. “The claim that inconsistent verdicts must be set aside is not one of constitutional dimen-
sion.” Id., 490, 492. Deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and fair trial cited. Id. “... admission of statements
made by a conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy is deemed not to violate the confrontation clause ...”. Id., 506.
Right to confront witnesses against cited; deprivation of fundamental right and a fair trial cited. Id. Pre and post arrest
silence; “Miranda” warnings and permitted cross-examination discussed. Id., 517. Right to remain silent cited; depriva-
tion of fundamental constitutional rights cited; right to fair trial cited; right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id.
Declined review of ineffective counsel claims even if supported by record so that all related claims could be considered
at once either on a petition for a new trial or for a writ of habeas corpus. Id. Right to speedy trial cited. Id., 542. Infringe-
ment of fundamental constitutional right cited; due process cited; fair trial cited. Id., 560. Cited. Id., 573. Right to speedy
trial cited. Id. Privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 598. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due
process cited. Id. Deprivation of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 680.
Fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited; due process cited; effective assistance of counsel cited; impartial
jury cited; compulsory process cited. 199 C. 14. Right to counsel during trial and/or sentencing procedure and waiver of
same discussed. Id., 30. Cited. Id., 47. Due process cited; constitutional protection under Connecticut Constitution cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 70. Criminal defendant does not have ultimate decision to call witnesses when he is represented by coun-
sel; his right to compulsory process is protected by representation by counsel. Id., 88. Cited. Id., 102. Right to a fair trial
cited; right to effective assistance of counsel cited; right to due process cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 121. Cited. Id.,
163. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 207. Right to a fair trial cited; due process cited; effective assistance of counsel
cited. Id. Judgment of appellate court in 2 CA 551 reversed and case remanded to court with direction to reinstate judg-
ment of trial court. Id., 231. Due process cited. Id. Court announced it would prospectively follow ruling in Luce v. U.S.,
105 S. Ct 460, which held that to “raise and preserve for review the claim of improper impeachment with a prior convic-
tion, a defendant must testify”. Id., 255. State and federal constitutional right to testify cited. Id. Fundamental right to
present a defense cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 273. Cited. Id., 281. Constitutional right to confrontation cited. Id.
Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 308. Cited. Id., 322. Fundamental constitutional right of a defendant not to
testify in his criminal trial cited. Id. Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Denial of effective assistance of coun-
sel cited. Id., 354. Due process cited. Id., 359. Cited. Id., 389; Id., 399. Due process cited, Id. Denial of right to a fair trial
cited. Id. Fair trial guaranty cited. Id. Cited. Id., 417. Right to assistance of counsel cited. Id. Claim of ineffective

-- 74 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 217
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
assistance of counsel more properly pursued on petition for new trial or on petition for writ of habeas corpus. Id., 462.
Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 473. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 481. Right to confront
and cross-examine witnesses cited. Id. Right to be informed of nature of charges cited. Id. Due process cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 496. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 537. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id.; Id., 557. Due process right cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 631. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 667. Due process right to fair warning cited. Id. Cited. Id., 693. Right to
due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 718; 200 C. 102. State due process clause cited. Id. Cited. Id., 113. Due process cited.
Id. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Right to be present at all stages cited. Id. Cited. Id., 224; Id., 268. Right to due process
and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 310. Right to a fundamentally fair trial cited. Id. Constitutional standards of due
process and violates due process cited. Id. Denial of due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Right to compulsory process
cited. Id. Finding of probable cause at preliminary hearing is reviewable on appeal. Id., 323. Right to confront and
cross-examine witnesses cited. Id. Cited. Id., 350. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 412. Violation of due process
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 453. Due process and fundamental fairness cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 465. Cited. Id., 544.
Constitutional right to a fair trial cited. Id. State constitutional rights to due process; fundamental constitutional rights,
cited. Id., 586. Cited. Id., 607. Right to self-representation cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 615. Opportunity for fair trial;
due process, cited. Id., 642. Cited. Id., 721. Deprivation of fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id., 743.
Cited. 201 C. 74. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 103, 105, 107. Right to effective assistance of counsel; right
to due process; right to impartial jury; right to a fair trial; right to confrontation and compulsory process, cited. Id., 125.
Right to due process cited. Id., 162. Fair trial and due process of law; effective assistance of counsel; constitutional rights
to an adequately instructed jury, cited. Id., 174. Deprivation of a fair trial cited. Id., 190. Cited. Id., 211. Right to confront
accusers; constitutional right as to effective cross-examination for bias, cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited.
Id., 368. “... hearsay claims do not automatically invoke constitutional rights to confrontation”; due process obligation;
confrontation clauses, cited. Id. Due process; constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence; voluntary and intelli-
gent waiver of constitutional rights; due process rights implicating fairness of trial, cited. Id., 395. Cited. Id., 421. Scope
and nature of right to testify would not necessarily be changed by virtue of its possible multiple origin so as to preclude
fair comment upon an accused’s interest. Id., 462. Right of confrontation; due process rights; right to be heard by him-
self, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 489. Denial of effective assistance of counsel; right to jury trial, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 505. Fun-
damental constitutional right and fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 517. Rights of confrontation cited. Id. Denial of effective
assistance of counsel cited. Id., 534. Right to due process; right to fair trial; constitutional rights to confrontation, com-
pulsory process and right to present a defense; speedy trial right; right to effective assistance of counsel, cited. Id., 559.
Cited. Id., 598. Fundamental constitutional right cited. Id. Use of preinstructions discussed; fair trial before impartial
jury; due process, cited. Id., 605. Compelled self-incrimination; constitutional right to no adverse influence instruction;
due process; fundamental constitutional right; constitutional rights to compulsory process, cited. Id., 659. Cited. Id., 675.
Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due process cited. 202 C. 1. Cited. Id., 18. Deprivation of a fundamen-
tal constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 39. Right against self-incrimination cited. Id. Constitutional
right of defendant to be present at all stages of trial cited. Id., 75. Cited. Id., 259. Effective assistance of counsel; rights
to compulsory process and confrontation; right effectively to cross-examine, cited. Id. Due process right to fair trial cited.
Id., 316. Cited. Id., 349. Due process; rights to adequately instructed jury and fair trial, cited. Id. Due process cited. Id.,
369. Cited. Id., 385. Due process; state constitutional right to a disinterested grand jury, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 429. Depri-
vation of state constitutional rights; deprivation of liberty in violation of constitutional rights, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 463.
Constitutional rights to due process; right to trial by impartial jury, cited. Id. Constitutional rights; compelled testimony,
cited. Id., 509. Cited. Id., 520. Constitutional rights to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 541. Constitutional rights to due
process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 615, 624. Constitutional right to be informed of nature of charge cited. Id. Cited. Id., 629.
Unconstitutionally vague; constitutionally entitled to be informed of nature and cause of accusations; vagueness doctrine
and requirements of due process, cited. Id. Constitutional right to due process and to present a defense; constitutional
right to call witnesses; invoke privilege against self-incrimination; right to confrontation and cross-examine witnesses,
cited. Id., 676. Cited. 203 C. 63. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 81; Id., 97; Id., 159. Conflict-free representation; right
to assistance of counsel; right to due process; rights of confrontation, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 212; Id., 246. Rights to due
process of law and constitutional rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 385. State constitutional rights to obtain and present wit-
nesses to establish a defense cited. Id., 445. Constitutional right to an impartial jury cited. Id., 506. Rights to due process;
unconstitutionally vague, cited. Id. Due process violation implicating fairness of trial cited. 204 C. 1. Cited. Id., 4. Con-
stitutional rights to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 120. Constitutional right to impartial jury cited. Id., 156. Due process
rights cited. Id., 187. Constitutional right to a fair trial; fundamental constitutional right that state establish guilt beyond
a reasonable doubt, cited. Id., 207. Due process cited. Id., 240. Cited. Id., 287. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 377. Due
process clauses cited. Id. Cited. Id., 410. Unconstitutionally vague; due process, cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague and
violation of right to due process cited. Id., 429. Cited. Id., 523. Right to impartial jury and fair trial cited. Id. Constitu-
tional right to due process cited. Id., 571. Cited. Id., 585. Constitutional right to develop a defense cited. Id., 654. In
criminal prosecutions for sexual abuse of children of tender years, videotaping of victim’s testimony outside physical
presence of defendant is constitutionally permissible only under circumstances discussed. Id., 683. Federal and state
confrontation clauses; right of confrontation, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 724. Constitutional right to due process cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 769; 205 C. 39. Deprivation of constitutional due process and confrontation rights; right to establish a defense, cited.
Id., 61. Due process; constitutional duty of disclosure; right to fair trial; ineffective assistance of counsel, cited. Id., 132.
Cited. Id., 201; Id., 262. Constitutional privilege against self-incrimination; “Miranda” rights, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 298.
“Miranda” rights; due process rights, cited. Id. Fundamental constitutional right to proof of guilt beyond reasonable
doubt cited. Id., 352. Deprivation of fundamental constitutional right to proof of every element of alleged crime beyond
a reasonable doubt; “... it is an abuse of the trial court’s discretion to permit a reopening of the case to supply the missing
evidence.” Id., 370. Constitutional rights to confrontation, cross-examination and proper notice; constitutional right to
proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, cited. Id., 386. Cited. Id., 437. State constitutional right to consult with counsel
during custodial interrogation; due process, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 456. Unconstitutionally vague or over broad; due pro-
cess, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 507. Constitutional right to cross-examine cited. Id. Cited. Id., 515. Common law rule against

-- 75 of 129 --

218 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
double jeopardy “adopted ... as necessary to the due process guaranteed by ... our constitution”. Id., 528. Cited. Id., 542.
Right of cross-examination cited. Id. Fundamental constitutional right that state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt;
constitutional right to a fair trial, cited. Id., 616. Cited. Id., 638; Id., 673. Due process; confrontation, cited. Id. Due
process right to present a defense; rights to due process and a fair trial, cited. Id., 723. Lack of authority of counsel to
invoke personal right of suspect no bar to imposition of duty to inform suspect of counsel’s efforts. 206 C. 157. Right to
counsel; due process; “Miranda” warnings independently required under due process, cited. Id. Denial of due process;
constitutional standards of due process, cited. Id., 182. Cited. Id., 203. Constitutional right against self-incrimination;
due process; right to fair trial, cited. Id., 213. Due process; vagueness and overbreadth, cited. Id., 267. Cited. Id., 300.
State due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 391. Rights to due process cited. Id., 512. Constitutional right not to testify
cited. Id., 621. Cited. Id., 636. Due process and taking clause cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 657; Id., 685. Cited.
207 C. 1. Due process; privilege against self-incrimination, cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id., 35. Cited. Id., 59. Rights
to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 109. Due process; effective assistance of counsel, cited. Id. Effective assistance of
counsel and due process cited. Id., 118. Due process cited. Id., 152. Clarification of the instructions is mandatory when
the jury or one of its members manifests confusion about the law; deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 191. Failure to advise
of mandatory minimum sentence does implicate constitutional rights. Id., 276. Fundamental constitutional right and fair
trial; due process; privilege against self-incrimination; right to confront one’s accusers; right to assistance of counsel,
cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 374. Sec. 53-21 unconstitutionally vague in circumstances of the case; due process and
unconstitutional vagueness; void for vagueness doctrine, cited. Id., 456. Due process cited. Id., 565. Right to fair trial and
denial of constitutional due process right to a fair trial cited. Id., 646. Due process cited. 208 C. 38. Cited. Id., 52. Right
to fair trial and fair and impartial jury; due process, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 125. State confrontation clause cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 156. Denial of fair trial; due process, cited. Id., 202. Cited. Id., 267. Connecticut Constitution cited; due process
cited. Id. Right to public trial cited; rights to confront accusers, present a defense and due process, and compulsory
process cited. Id., 365. Cited. Id., 543. Due process cited. Id. Cited. 209 C. 23. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 34. Due
process rights cited; right to be convicted by a unanimous verdict cited. Id. Constitutional right to a speedy trial cited.
Id., 52. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 75. Due process cited. Id., 143. Fundamental fairness and due
process cited. Id., 225. Due process cited; right of confrontation cited. Id., 290. Fundamental right to unanimous jury
decision; fundamental due process rights cited. Id., 322. Due process rights and a fair trial cited. Id., 423. Right to con-
frontation cited; right to impartial jury and fair trial cited; right to speedy trial cited. Id., 564. Cited. Id., 622. Deprived
of fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 636. Right to confront witnesses cited; right not to
present evidence cited; right not to testify cited. Id. Cited. Id., 652. Due process and unconstitutional vagueness cited. Id.
Due process cited. Id., 719. Due process cited; right to present a defense cited; right to unanimous jury verdict cited. Id.,
733. Amount involved essential element of offense. Id., 801. Cited. 210 C. 22. “Miranda” rights cited; due process cited;
constitutional rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 51. Right to confront witnesses cited; right of confrontation cited. Id. Cited. Id.,
78. Right to a speedy trial cited; due process rights cited; right to fair trial cited; rights to confrontation and cross-exami-
nation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 110. Due process rights cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague cited; constitutional right to re-
main silent cited; deprivation of due process cited; deprivation of fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited.
Id., 132. Due process cited. Id., 157. Right of confrontation cited; due process rights cited; deprivation of fundamental
constitutional right cited; double jeopardy cited. Id., 244. Cited. Id., 286. Due process cited. Id. Due process cited. Id.,
304. Due process cited; due process right to trial by impartial jury cited. Id., 315. Cited. Id., 359. Due process cited; right
to confrontation cited; due process right to notice of charges cited; right to unanimous verdict and fair trial cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 396; Id., 435. Due process cited; notice of charges, right to counsel, privilege against self-incrimination, right
to confrontation and cross-examination cited; proof beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id. “Miranda” rights cited. Id., 619.
Due process right to fair trial cited. Id., 631. Cited. Id., 652. Constitutional rights of confrontation cited; due process
cited. Id. Constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id., 751. Cited. 211 C. 18. Due process guarantees cited. Id. Right
against self-incrimination cited; due process right cited. Id., 101. Fundamental due process right cited. Id., 151. Cited.
Id., 215. Constitutional right to counsel cited. Id. Constitutional right to present witnesses and due process rights cited.
Id., 258. Cited. Id., 289. Due process right of confrontation and cross-examination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 352. Ineffective
assistance of counsel cited; Connecticut Constitution due process clause cited. Id. Cited. Id., 398. Ineffective assistance
of counsel cited; right to a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 455. Rights to notice of charges against him cited. Id. Due process
and right of confrontation cited; right to fair trial cited. Id., 555. Due process and right to fair trial cited. Id., 672. Cited.
212 C. 31. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 50. Right to confrontation cited; due process clause cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 83. Fee requirement not violation of constitutional rights. Id. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 223. Confrontation
rights cited; right to be informed of nature of charges cited. Id. Due process right to a fair trial, denial of fair trial cited.
Id., 325. Cited. Id., 351. Due process clause cited; fair trial cited. Id. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence due process
cited; constitutional duty of disclosure cited. Id., 387. Right to a speedy trial cited. Id., 441. Right to due process and a
fair trial cited; right to impartial jury cited. Id., 593. Right to due process cited; fair opportunity to defend cited. Id., 612.
Home release status, unlike probation, does not confer liberty interest protected by state constitutional due process. 213
C. 38. Due process clause cited. Id. Cited. Id., 97. Right to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 161. Due process provision
cited; right to fair trial cited; right to compulsory process cited; right to assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 233.
Appellate review under State v. Evans, 165 C. 61, discussed; guidelines furnished. Id. Deprivation of a fundamental
constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 243. Right to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 388. Due process
rights cited; constitutional right to a fair trial cited; confrontation clause of state constitution cited. Id. Cited. Id., 405.
Involuntary statements under state constitution cited; due process right to fair trial cited. Id. Due process cited; right to
establish a defense cited. Id., 579. Equation of “great bodily harm” with “serious physical injury” insufficient to instruct
jury on use of deadly physical force in self-defense against threat of forcible sexual assault. Id., 593. Due process right
to establish a defense cited. Id. Cited. 214 C. 77; Id., 89. Deprivation of due process and a fundamental constitutional
right and a fair trial cited. Id., 118. Deprivation of right to due process under federal and state constitutions and a fair trial
cited. Id., 122. Insufficiency of evidence presented at probable cause hearing renders moot subsequent prosecution and
conviction. Id., 132. Due process of law cited. Id. Constitutional rights of confrontation, compulsory process, due

-- 76 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 219
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
process and privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id., 146. Fundamental right to have guilt established beyond a
reasonable doubt cited. Id., 161. Cited. Id., 232. Due process and due process jurisprudence and claims cited; constitu-
tionally protected interests cited. Id. Summary criminal contempt procedure discussed; due process rights cited; no claim
of constitutional deprivation of notice cited. Id., 344. Cited; deprivation of fair trial cited; void for vagueness cited;
claims of prosecutorial misconduct cited; constitutional right to due process cited. Id., 378. Due process cited; constitu-
tional right not to be tried without probable cause being found cited. Id., 476. Cited; right to notice of charges cited; right
to present a defense and to a fair trial and deprivation of due process rights cited. Id., 493. Due process right to establish
a defense cited. Id., 540. Considerations of due process cited. Id., 616. Cited. Id., 657. Ineffective assistance of counsel
cited; right to confrontation and pertaining to self-incrimination cited. Id., 717. Right to fair trial and due process cited;
right to impartial jury cited. Id., 752. Ability to present a defense cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. 215 C. 1.
Cited; rights to fair trial before impartial jury cited; due process clause cited. Id., 231. Constitutional right of confronta-
tion cited; due process cited. Id., 257. Due process clause cited. Id., 292. Due process right to fair trial cited. Id., 653.
Opportunity to cross-examine effectively; constitutional right to confrontation cited. Id., 716. Due process clause of
Connecticut Constitution cited. Id., 739. Cited. 216 C. 150, see also 26 CA 423, 27 CA 291, 223 C. 902 and 225 C. 10,
reversing judgment in State v. Marsala. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 172; Id., 188. Constitutional rights to due pro-
cess cited. Id. Right to establish defense cited. Id. Rights to due process cited; right to confrontation cited. Id., 273. Cited.
Id., 367. Right to impartial jury cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id. Right to be convicted only upon proof beyond
reasonable doubt cited. Id. Cited. Id., 402, see also 234 C. 301. Cited. Id., 436. Due process rights cited. Id. Constitu-
tional right to due process cited; rights to confrontation cited. Id., 492. Right to confront witnesses in criminal proceeding
cited. Id., 563. Right to fair trial; deprivation of due process cited. Id., 585. Cited. Id., 647. Rights to effective assistance
of counsel and to due process of law and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 678. Right to counsel, and ineffective assistance
of counsel cited. Id. Fair trial and right to be present at trial cited. Id. Due process limitation and claims cited. Id. Con-
frontation clause cited. Id. Constitutional right to undivided loyalty of counsel cited. Id., 822. Privilege against self-in-
crimination cited. 217 C. 24. Cited. Id., 73; Id., 243. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation cited. Id.
Due process cited. Id. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 498; Id., 532. Right to due process; right to impartial
jury cited. Id. Constitutional rights to due process cited; rights to fair trial and to present a defense cited. Id., 648. Right
to be heard by himself and by counsel cited. Id., 671. Cited. 218 C. 65. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 85. Right to
speedy trial cited. Id. Rights to due process and to confront witnesses against him cited. Id. State was free to create own
methods and procedures to establish probable cause; Sec. 54-46a constitutional. Id., 151. Rights to due process, depriva-
tion of fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 239. Rights to present a defense and to due process cited. Id. Privilege against
self-incrimination cited. Id. Right to assistance of counsel cited. Id. No right to presence of counsel at psychiatric exami-
nation itself. Id., 349. Right to due process cited. Id. Guarantee against self-incrimination cited. Id. Right to counsel
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 447. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Right to present a defense cited. Id. Due process right to a fair
trial cited. Id. Constitutional dilution of burden of proof cited. Id. Rights to due process cited. Id., 458. Cited. Id., 486.
State constitutional privilege against compelled self-incrimination cited. Id. Due process and right to fair trial cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 714. “Miranda” rights and self-incrimination clauses cited. Id. Constitutional privilege against self-incrimina-
tion cited; rights to due process cited. Id., 766. Deprivation of due process rights cited. 219 C. 93. Rights to due process,
deprivation and rights of fair trial cited. Id., 160. Due process clauses cited; privileges against self-incrimination cited;
rights to counsel cited; rights to present a defense cited. Id., 234. Unconstitutionally vague, deprivation of fair trial, due
process right to fair warning, right to confront witnesses against cited. Id., 489. Due process requirements, right to fair
trial cited. Id., 605. Cited. Id., 721. Due process rights cited. Id. Constitutional right to fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 743.
State constitutional right to counsel cited. Id. “... proper measure of attorney performance remains simply reasonableness
under prevailing professional norms.” 220 C. 1. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Fundamental constitu-
tional rights to jury trial, confrontation and self-incrimination cited. Id., 6. Cited. Id., 61. Due process cited. Id. “... due
process concerns actual impact of resentencing on a defendant, not percentages.” Id., 169. Due process cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 270. Mandate that there be valid probable cause hearing cited. Id. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 345. Right to
present defense and confront witnesses cited. Id. Right to a fair trial cited. Id., 385. Due process, unconstitutional jury
selection and discrimination cited; right to fair trial cited. Id., 487. Cited. Id., 602. Due process cited. Id. Right to con-
front witnesses cited. Id. Right to counsel cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id. Rights against self-incrimination cited;
rights to present a defense and to due process cited. Id., 698. Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 765. State due
process rights cited. Id., 796. Cited. Id., 922. Rights to present a defense, confront and cross-examine witnesses and to
due process cited. 221 C. 58. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 84. Right to counsel cited; constitutional stan-
dard of cross-examination cited. Id., 128. Constitutional right to presumption of innocence and right to fair trial before
impartial jury cited. Id., 264. Rights to present a defense, to due process and to a fair trial cited; right to confront wit-
nesses cited. Id., 315. Right against self-incrimination cited. Id., 407. Voluntariness of statements under state constitution
cited. Id., 430. Cited. Id., 447. Due process rights cited. Id. Right to present a defense cited. Id. Right to compulsory
process cited. Id. Right to confront witnesses cited. Id. Prohibition against double jeopardy cited. Id. Due process rights
cited. Id., 498. Deprivation of fair trial or an impartial jury cited. Id., 518. Cited. Id., 643. Right to present a defense cited.
Id. Right to notice of charges against him cited. Id. Cited. Id., 685; 222 C. 1. Deprivation of constitutional rights cited.
Id. Right to present a defense cited. Id. Deprivation of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 87. Deprivation of fair
trial cited; dilution of obligation to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 117. Attorney in a disciplinary pro-
ceeding has no constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel under general rule that civil proceedings ordinarily
do not give rise to right to counsel. Id., 131. Denial of right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. State due process
clause cited. Id., 233. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 254–258. Right to confront witnesses and to due
process cited; fairness of trial cited. Id., 299. Cited. Id., 312. Deprivation of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due
process cited. Id. Confrontation rights cited. Id. Sec. 54-64f(c) as applied to defendant does not violate right of bail
provision. Id., 331. Constitutional right to be released on bail cited. Id. Due process cited. Id. Due process rights to fair
trial cited. Id., 444. Cited. Id., 506. Due process and right to be informed of charges cited. Id. Privilege against self-in-
crimination cited. Id. Right to remain silent cited. Id. Entitlement to probable cause hearing cited. Id. Right to fair trial

-- 77 of 129 --

220 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 556; Id., 799. Due process cited. Id. Deprivation of fair trial cited; undue emphasis on defendant’s
burden of proof with respect to affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance cited. 223 C. 41. Cited. Id., 52.
Right to due process cited; violation of fundamental fairness cited. Id., 180. Constitutional right to present a defense
cited. Id., 207. Cited. Id., 243. Prohibition against double jeopardy cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id. Deprivation of
fair trial cited. Id., 273. Cited. Id., 299. Due process cited. Id. Right of confrontation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 354. Fundamen-
tal fairness required by due process cited. Id. Due process right to impartial panel cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of ap-
pellate counsel cited. Id., 411. Due process right to fundamental fairness cited; right to fair trial cited. Id., 461. Cited. Id.,
535. Due process right to fair trial cited. Id. Constitutional right to present a defense cited. Id. Cited. Id., 595. Deprivation
of due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 635. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Violation of constitutional right to remain silent
cited. Id. Rights of confrontation cited; rights to fair trial cited; rights under due process cited. Id., 731. Cited. Id., 834.
Right to due process cited. Id., 903. Violation involving constitutional rights of due process warrants no more than a new
trial; judgment of appellate court in 25 CA 270 reversed in part; part of ruling in 182 C. 585 overruled. 224 C. 1. Right
to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 63. Ineffective assistance of counsel and due process cited. Id. “Miranda” rights cited.
Id. Cross-examination and impeachment of witnesses cited. Id. Constitutional right to a speedy trial cited. Id., 163. Right
to due process cited; unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 168. Right to present a defense cited. Id., 196. Right to assis-
tance of counsel cited. Id., 253. Constitutional right to confrontation cited. Id. 325. Due process cited; right to notice of
crimes charged and to conduct adequate cross-examination cited. Id., 397. Cited. Id., 445. Due process cited. Id. Guar-
antees to due process and an impartial jury cited; right to jury selected from fair cross section of the community cited.
Id., 711. Right to due process cited. Id., 730. Void for vagueness cited. Id., 914. Cited. Id., 920; 225 C. 55. Constitutional
claim cited. Id. Privilege against self-incrimination and “Miranda” rights cited. Id. Due process and fair trial cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 270. Due process rights cited. Id. Due process rights to a fair trial cited. Id., 347. Due process cited. Id., 355.
Sec. 53a-13(a) does not violate state due process rights. Id., 450. Rights and provisions for due process cited. Id. Defen-
dant’s right to testify cited. Id. Right of cross-examination cited. Id. Deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 519. Due process
challenge to constitutionality of Sec. 54-56d cited. Id., 524. Cited. Id., 609. Privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id.,
666. Cited. 226 C. 237. Due process and deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 314. Due process cited. Id. Balance
between fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination and defendant’s right to compel witness testimony dis-
cussed. Id., 497. Right to compel witnesses cited. Id. Privilege against compelled self-incrimination cited. Id. Cited. Id.,
618. Rights to a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. 227 C. 1. Right to confrontation, cross-examination and due process cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 32; Id., 101. “Miranda” warnings and custodial interrogation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 301. Due process clauses and
due process rights cited. Id. Deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Right to impartial jury cited. Id. Cited. Id., 333; Id., 389.
Right to confront witnesses cited. Id. Right to due process and a fair trial cited; rights against compelled self-incrimina-
tion cited. Id., 417. Cited. Id., 456. Due process cited. Id. Involuntary statements cited. Id. Due process and right to
present a defense cited; burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id., 518. Cited. Id., 534. Due process cited. Id.
Unconstitutionally vague cited; right to due process cited. Id., 566. Cited. Id., 611. Confrontation and due process cited.
Id. Due process clause of Connecticut Constitution requires a new trial if jury is instructed that defendant may be found
guilty on a statutory alternative for which there is no evidence. Id., 616. Due process rights cited. Id. Right to due process
and to be present cited; right to assistance of counsel cited; right to cross-examine cited. Id., 677. Cited. Id., 711. Right
to due process cited. Id. Right to confront witnesses cited. Id. Right to jury drawn from cross section of community cited.
Id. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id. Right to adequately instructed jury cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 751. Confrontation and due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 921. Due process clause cited. Id. Cited. 228
C. 62. Probable cause hearing cited. Id. Cited. Id., 118. Right to confront witnesses; right to due process and burden of
proof cited. Id. Proper standard for appellate review of denial of motion for continuance to retain private counsel dis-
cussed. Id., 234. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Rights to due process cited. Id. Right to counsel of choice
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 281. “Miranda” warnings’ independent significance under state constitution cited. Id. Privilege
against compelled self-incrimination cited. Id. Right to present a defense and to due process of law cited. Id., 335. Cited.
Id., 393; Id., 412; Id., 456. Right to due process cited. Id. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Right to speedy appeal and to
confrontation and a fair trial cited; right to meaningful appeal cited; right to speedy trial cited. Id., 552. Right to have
one’s guilt proven beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id., 610. Constitutional right to establish a defense cited. Id., 756.
Cited. Id., 795. Void for vagueness cited. Id. Due process rights and right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 919.
Cited. Id., 928. Due process clause of the Connecticut Constitution cited. 229 C. 60. Cited. Id., 125. Disclosure of excul-
patory evidence cited. Id. Deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Provision of counsel cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id.
Deprivation of due process cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 178. Cited. Id., 228. Right to due process
and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 285. Due process cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 397. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Rights to due process of law cited. Id. Right to a fair
trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 516. Right of defendant not to testify; right against self-incrimination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 529.
Due process rights cited; right to be informed of nature and cause of charges cited. Id. Violation of due process rights by
diluting state’s burden of proof cited; right of confrontation cited. Id., 557. Judgment of appellate court in 32 CA 217
reversed. Id., 580. Due process clause cited. Id. Due process clauses of state or federal constitution protect individuals
against governmental rather than private deprivation of property. Id., 592. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 691; Id., 703.
Due process rights cited. Id. Right to confrontation and due process cited. 230 C. 43. Deprivation of effective assistance
of trial and appellate counsel cited; judgment of appellate court in 31 CA 771 reversed. Id., 88. Cited. Id., 183. Uncon-
stitutional vagueness cited; rights of due process cited; due process clauses impliedly prohibiting cruel and unusual
punishment cited; jury instruction depriving defendant of fair trial cited. Id. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited;
rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 351. Cited. Id., 385, see also 37 CA 801. Right to impartial jury with
adequate voir dire cited; right to counsel, to remain silent, to be present during trial, to confrontation and against self-in-
crimination cited. Right to due process cited; right to present an insanity defense cited. Id., 400. Cited. Id., 572. Rights
to due process cited. Id. Ineffective assistance trial and appellate counsel cited; rights to due process cited. Id., 608. Cited.
Id., 909. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 916. Cited. 231 C. 43. Constitutional right to trial cited; nondisclosed ex-
culpatory evidence cited. Id. Cited. Id., 77. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id. Cited. Id., 235. Due process cited; right to

-- 78 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 221
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
confrontation cited. Id. Lack of due process and ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 274. Rights to due process
cited; right of defendants to establish a defense cited; burden of disproving beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id., 484.
Right to due process and effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id.,
936. Constitutional right to fair trial and due process cited. 232 C. 1. Cited. Id., 198. Due process rights cited. Id. Due
process requiring trial judge to ensure jury remains impartial and unprejudiced throughout trial; judgment of appellate
court in 33 CA 339 reversed with respect to this issue. Id., 431; judgment superseded by en banc reconsideration, see 235
C. 502. Right to due process cited; right to unprejudiced jury cited. Id. Cited. Id., 691. Right to due process cited. Id. Due
process under state constitution requires consideration of three factors discussed; judgment of appellate court in 33 CA
184 reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Id., 707. Rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id.,
740. Right to confrontation cited. Id., 910. Right to present a defense and self defense instruction cited. 233 C. 1. Due
process rights under state constitution cited. Id., 44. “... efficient, intervening cause ...” discussed. Id., 106. Right to
confrontation cited; right to consult with counsel cited; instruction regarding element of causation cited. Id. Cited. Id.,
215. Effective assistance of counsel cited; due process cited; instruction violating right to a fair trial cited. Id. Review of
comment on evidence is not constitutionally mandated when trial court in exercise of sound discretion determines such
commentary not necessary; judgment of appellate court in 33 CA 743 reversed. Id., 502. Right to due process cited. Id.
Judgment of appellate court in 34 CA 368 affirmed in part and remanded for articulation. Id., 517. Cited. Id., 557; Id.,
813. Self representation cited; right to effective assistance of counsel cited; due process requirements cited; prosecutorial
misconduct cited; confrontation issue cited. Id. Due process cited. 234 C. 97. Cited. Id., 139. Effective assistance of
counsel cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 301. Due process of law cited; right to effective assistance of counsel
cited. Id., 324. Ban on assault weapons, Secs. 53-202a–53-202k, sufficiently clear to satisfy due process requirements;
right to due process cited; facial vagueness cited. Id.; 455. Interplay of double jeopardy and prosecutorial misconduct
discussed. Id., 683. Prosecutorial misconduct cited; right to confrontation cited; ineffective assistance of counsel and
compulsory process cited. Id. Due process rights and deprivation of fair trial cited. 235 C. 145. Cited. Id., 206. Cruel and
unusual punishment impliedly prohibited cited; violation of state constitution cited. Id. Due process and right of defen-
dant to establish a defense cited. Id., 274. Unconstitutional dilution of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id., 397.
Admissibility of identification cited. Id., 402. Right to due process cited. Id., 405. Sec. 26-40a held not unconstitutionally
vague. Id., 427. Unconstitutionally vague and due process cited. Id. Rights of confrontation cited. Id., 473. Judgment of
appellate court in 33 CA 339 reversed on issues of sufficiency of evidence and jury misconduct; judgment in 232 C. 431
superseded by en banc reconciliation. Id., 502. Rights to fair and impartial jury and due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 595.
Right to confrontation and due process cited; constitutional prohibitions against mandatory presumptions cited. Id. Due
process rights cited. Id., 671. Due process cited; privilege against self-incrimination and right to confront one’s accusers
cited. Id., 679. Right to present an effective defense cited. Id., 711. Right to confront witnesses against cited. Id., 746.
Cited. Id., 748. Due process and a fair trial cited; prosecutorial misconduct cited. Id. Due process cited; due process right
to present a defense cited. Id., 802. Cited. 236 C. 1. Due process and deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 31. Cited. Id., 112.
Defendant’s right to be present throughout the trial cited; right of confrontation cited; defendant’s failure to testify and
due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 176; Id., 189. Due process and prohibition against relieving state of burden of proving
every element of crime beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id. Right to a fair trial cited. Id., 209. Cited. Id., 266. Rights to
fair trial, due process and to counsel cited; right to present a defense cited. Id. Due process and right of defendant to
establish a defense cited. Id., 342. Cited. Id., 388. Right to assistance of counsel cited; due process cited; voluntariness
of statement cited. Id. Cited. Id., 421. Procedural and substantive due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 514. Constitutional
rights of confrontation, compulsory process and due process cited; right to impeach and discredit witnesses cited; right
to cross-examination cited. Id. Right to due process cited; right to counsel cited. Id., 561. Due process cited. Id., 602.
Constitutional right to present a defense cited. 237 C. 58. Cited. Id., 284. Fair trial and due process rights cited; uncon-
stitutionally vague and adequate notice of changes cited. Id. Right to counsel cited. Id., 332. Cited. Id., 348. Due process
rights cited; right that state prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id. Right to counsel; right to remain
silent; right against self-incrimination, right to confrontation cited. Id., 378. Cited. Id., 390. Due process clause of state
constitution cited; proof beyond reasonable doubt of voluntariness of confession cited; failure to record confession elec-
tronically cited; “Miranda” rights cited; preponderance of evidence cited. Id. Does not require electronic recording in
order for confession to be admissible at trial. Id. Cited. Id., 454. Fair trial by impartial jury cited; right to jury selected
from fair cross section of community cited. Id. Cited. Id., 576. Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses cited. Id.
Waiver of right to counsel cited; right to self-representation cited; right to confront accusers and privilege against self-in-
crimination cited; due process cited. Id., 633. Electronic recording of confessions is not a prerequisite to their admissi-
bility at trial under this section. Id., 694. State constitutional right to due process cited; right to counsel cited. Id. Cited.
238 C. 1. Rights to due process cited. Id. Right to present a defense cited. Id., 313. Cited. Id., 389. Prohibition against
cruel and unusual punishment derived from due process clauses of state constitution cited; due process cited; right to
assistance of counsel cited; right to impartial jury cited; unconstitutional vagueness cited. Id. Cited. Id., 588. Right to
counsel cited. Id., 692. Cited. Id., 784. Right to due process cited. 239 C. 56. Cited. Id., 313. Procedural due process
cited. Id. Cited. Id., 405. Voluntariness of confession cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 427. Judgment of appellate court
in 39 CA 645 reversed and case remanded to that court with direction to remand case to trial court to consider due pro-
cess claim by full evidentiary hearing. Id., 467. Due process cited. Id. Rights to due process cited; right to fair trial cited;
dilution of burden of proof cited. Id., 481. Fundamental requirements of fairness and right to fair trial cited. Id., 629.
Cited. 240 C. 97; Id., 119. State constitution cited; due process cited. Id., 157. Due process right to fair trial cited. Id.,
210. Rights to confrontation and to present a defense cited; right to due process cited. Id., 395. Ineffective assistance of
counsel cited. Id,. 547. Cited. Id., 708. Due process rights cited; right to counsel cited. Id. Right to due process and un-
constitutionally vague cited. Id., 766. Cited. 241 C. 57. Right to compulsory process and to present a defense cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 322. Rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 439. Due process and right to jury determination
of essential element cited; failure to instruct jury on essential element cited. Id. Cited. Id., 502. Rights to due process and
a fair trial under state constitution cited. Id. Prosecutorial misconduct, due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 802. Cited.
Id., 823. Confrontation requirements cited. Id. Improper shifting of burden of proof, constitutional rights and deprivation

-- 79 of 129 --

222 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
of a fair trial cited. 242 C. 93. Cited. Id., 125. Right to trial by jury cited; right to present a defense and to cross-exami-
nation cited; violation of due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 143. Due process right to fair and impartial jury cited. Id.
Unconstitutionally vague on its face and as applied to conduct; due process requirements cited. Id., 211. Cited. Id., 296.
Prohibition against double jeopardy and right to due process cited; right to confront accusers cited. Id. Deprivation of due
process cited; right to confront witnesses and to compulsory process cited. Id., 318. Speedy trial principles cited; inef-
fective assistance of counsel and a fair trial cited. Id., 389. Notice of charge against defendant cited; constitutionally re-
quired hearing re probable cause cited. Id., 409. Cited. Id., 432. Deprivation of due process and rights to a fair trial and
to present a defense cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 445. Protected rights to due process cited. Id., 485.
Cited. Id., 505. Due process and withholding of exculpatory evidence cited. Id. Due process clause of Connecticut Con-
stitution cited; court invoked its supervisory authority to require trial courts to explain, upon request by a defendant, their
reason for imposing a greater sentence after trial than previously had been imposed under the terms of a plea agreement.
Id., 523. Cited. Id., 605; Id., 666. Right to confrontation and to cross-examination cited; right to due process and jury trial
cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel and deprivation of due process cited. Id., 689. Ineffective assistance of counsel
cited. Id., 723. Rights to due process cited; constitutional requirements for fairness in initial identification procedures
cited. Id., 745. Cited. 243 C. 115. Constitutional speedy trial rights cited. Id. Does not require the presence of counsel for
a valid waiver of the right to counsel when defendant himself initiates contact with the police and has been properly
advised of his “Miranda” rights. Id., 205. Waiver of “Miranda” rights and right to counsel cited. Id. No due process right
exists for plaintiff lacking a property interest but the court recognizes a common-law right to fundamental fairness in
administrative hearings. Id., 266. Failure of police to preserve evidence was not a due process violation where evidence
was not material, police did not consider evidence significant and any prejudice was minimal. Id., 282. Since Sec.
46b-127(a) does not create a vested liberty interest in juvenile status, the right to due process is not violated by transfer-
ring a juvenile to the criminal docket without notice, hearing or the assistance of counsel. 245 C. 93. Right to effective
assistance of counsel with respect to access to sentence review discussed. Id., 132. Lack of fair warning to defendant of
new construction of assault statute that found criminal liability for failure to act discussed. Id., 209. Defendant not de-
prived of right to probable cause hearing when attorney requested postponement beyond sixty-day period because waiver
of the time period in which to hold hearing may be asserted by the attorney for the defendant and does not require the
defendant personally to appear and be canvassed. Id., 301. Although Sec. 10-233d(a)(1) was not unconstitutionally vague
on its face, it was unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of case since it did not provide student with adequate
notice that having marijuana in the trunk of a car off school grounds after school hours was seriously disruptive of the
educational process and would subject him to expulsion. 246 C. 89. Improper jury instruction concerning evidentiary
matter did not violate defendant’s due process rights. 248 C. 132. Court presumes that limitations provision in Sec. 31-
349(b) and re-notification provision of Sec. 31-349(e) do not violate Connecticut Constitution because plaintiffs briefed
no argument that Connecticut Constitution entitles them to relief greater than that afforded by U.S. Constitution. Id., 466.

Amendment XXIX Ratified amendment and publisher annotations.

Court adheres to test that defendant’s right to remain silent is violated when a prosecutor’s comments are of such char-
acter that the jury would “naturally and necessarily” take them to be comments on the failure of the defendant to testify,
declining to adopt less stringent test for state constitutional claims that right is violated when prosecutor’s comments are
“fairly susceptible” of being considered a comment on defendant’s failure to testify. Id., 652. Action of prosecutor in
giving doll to child victim, and trial court’s response in refusing to allow defendant to question child concerning her
treatment by the prosecutor, denied defendant due process. 249 C. 735. Amendment rendered indicting grand juries ob-
solete. 250 C. 188. Jury was not coerced where judge did not permit it to cease deliberation and be sent home for the day.
Id., 385. Appellate Court properly rejected defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct during state’s closing argu-
ment and state was not prohibited from asking jury to draw an inference from the absence of evidence concerning any
improper motivation behind the minor female victim’s identification of defendant. 251 C. 252. Duty of disclosure of
effort of counsel to contact defendant; State v. Stoddard, 206 C. 157, factually distinguished. Id., 285. Identification and
excusal for cause, prior to the guilt phase of a capital felony trial, of venire persons whose views concerning the death
penalty preclude them from serving as jurors at the sentencing phase, but not at the guilt phase, of the trial does not vio-
late the state constitutional guarantee of trial by an impartial jury. Id., 671. Supreme Court has repeatedly equated com-
mon-law right to trial by an impartial jury that was incorporated into state constitution in 1818 to that provided by federal
constitution. Id. Defendant’s right to self-representation was not violated by trial court’s use of standby counsel to pro-
vide defendant with access to legal materials, and defendant’s rights to self-representation and a fair trial were not vio-
lated by trial court’s order that he remain in leg shackles during trial and trial court’s failure to allow defendant to respond
to the reasons given by officials for the shackling. Id., 768. Because lethal injection is constitutional under federal con-
stitution, it is constitutional under state constitution. 252 C. 128. Defendants were not entitled to either new probable
cause hearing or new trial because they failed to establish that the two pieces of allegedly exculpatory evidence, a police
report in which an informant stated that a third person admitted committing the murders and a witness statement, were
both favorable and material to their defenses under test for a Brady violation and that such violation tainted subsequent
prosecution of defendants and deprived them of right to a fair trial. Id., 533. Defendant’s due process rights not violated
by photographic identification of defendant by the mother of a victim who came to police station without an appointment
and unsolicited by the police for the purpose of requesting a picture of the person for whom an arrest warrant had been
issued and such identification procedures were not unnecessarily suggestive. Furthermore, such identification was reli-
able under the totality of the circumstances–victim’s mother had ample opportunity to observe defendant both times he
visited her home, she viewed the picture with sufficient closeness and in good lighting and her level of certainty was
high. Id. Venire person’s potential reluctance to vote to convict constitutes a valid, race neutral reason for the exercise of
peremptory challenge; Supreme Court refused to consider unpreserved claim; trial court is not required to undertake sua
sponte review of prior peremptory challenges due to subsequent challenges that do not pass Batson case test. Id. 280.
Right to fair trial; trial court did not abuse its discretion in considering potential juror bias. Id. Reasonable doubt; jury
instruction that defines reasonable doubt as doubt for which you can give or assign a reason is permitted; jury instruction
that says reasonable doubt is something you can explain to someone is disapproved but does not render an otherwise
adequate instruction unconstitutional. Id. Reasonable doubt; jury instruction permissible that the law is made to protect

-- 80 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 223
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
society and those whose guilt has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and not to protect those whose guilt
has been so established. Id. Jury instruction was proper that Sec. 53a-54a incorporates doctrine of transferred intent and
holds both a principal and an accomplice liable for death of an unintended victim; no constitutional error. Id., 354. Only
substantial compliance is necessary for plea of guilty or nolo contendere under Practice Book Sec. 39-20; Appellate
Court reversed. Id., 375. Requirement that defendant bear burden of persuasion with respect to affirmative defense of
driving pursuant to valid work permit under Sec. 14-37a does not violate defendant’s due process rights. 254 C. 107. Jury
instructions concerning self-defense, in particular defendant’s duty to retreat and victims’ right to use reasonable force
in defense of their premises, did not violate defendant’s right to present a defense. Id., 184. Prosecutor’s remarks during
closing argument in which she rendered her opinion as to the credibility of victim’s testimony, referred to facts not in
evidence and appealed to the passions and emotions of jury constituted misconduct and denied defendant his due process
right to a fair trial. Id., 290. Witness statement as to furtherance of murder conspiracy held to be within coconspirator
exception to hearsay rule and therefore not violative of confrontation clause. Id., 739. Trial court did not improperly
prevent defendant from effectively cross-examining police detective about conduct during questioning of witness in
unrelated civil case where civil judgment did not clearly or directly reflect on detective’s veracity as a witness in present
case, did not prove that detective harbored a bias toward reluctant witnesses, and was collateral and did not link detec-
tive’s acts in civil case with acts alleged in present case. 255 C. 61. Where the cause of a declared mistrial, the conflict
between trier of fact presiding over both motion to suppress and trial itself, was brought to attention of the court prior to
trial, there was no surprise warranting declaration of a mistrial based on manifest necessity and, therefore, subsequent
reprosecution would constitute double jeopardy. Id., 186. Even though parental rights terminated, parent has constitu-
tional right to effective assistance of counsel at termination proceeding because of claim to being a parent. Id., 208. In
case concerning assault of a police officer under Sec. 53a-167c, trial court denied defendant’s right to confrontation and
right to present a defense when it prevented defendant from questioning the officer re the first element of the crime,
namely, whether the officer was performing his duties when defendant struck him. Id., 581. Defendant’s due process
right to a fair and impartial jury was not violated by trial court’s failure to sequester jury since pretrial publicity was not
so inflammatory or inaccurate as to create a trial atmosphere utterly corrupted by press coverage. 256 C. 23. Limited
constancy of accusation doctrine upheld, and admission of overlapping constancy of accusation testimony from multiple
witnesses did not violate defendant’s confrontation and due process rights. Id. Due process rights of defendant were not
violated when trial court allowed witness who was reimbursed by state for lost wages in violation of state statute to tes-
tify because trial court’s remedy of disclosing the reimbursement to the jury and allowing defendant to cross-examine
the witness about the reimbursement was sufficient to cure any prejudice created by the reimbursement. Id. Due process
does not require that defendant be given the opportunity to substantiate an immaterial claim. Id. Review of claims that
trial court lengthened defendant’s sentence as a punishment for exercising his or her constitutional right to a jury trial
should be based on the totality of the circumstances with the burden of proof on defendant. Id. In order for defendant to
have constructively possessed narcotics, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant knew of the
character and presence of the narcotics and that he intended to and did exercise dominion and control over the narcotics.
Id., 164. There was substantial evidence presented to establish beyond reasonable doubt that defendant had intentionally
set one of the four fires in question, despite defendant’s claim that there was an insufficiency of evidence for the jury to
find him guilty and that he therefore was deprived of his constitutional right to a fair trial; direct and circumstantial evi-
dence was cited to show that defendant had the financial motive and logistic opportunity to set the fire and the state’s
experts testified that the fire was set intentionally. Id., 214. Exemption from the securities registration requirement is an
affirmative defense to charge of selling unregistered securities under Sec. 36b-16 and Sec. 36b-21(g) expressly places
the burden of proving an exemption on the person claiming it; the existence and applicability of an exemption does not
negate any essential element of the crime that the state has the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt in order to
convict, and requiring defendant to bear the burden of proving that affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evi-
dence does not violate defendant’s right to due process. Id., 313. Trial court’s instruction on attempted first degree sexual
assault by fellatio found to be constitutionally infirm since trial court neither stated nor intimated that penetration is a
requirement generally of the crime and thus there was not reason for jury to have known that proof of penetration was
necessary to find defendant guilty. Id., 517. Procedures of Sec. 31-349c(a) do not meet minimal due process require-
ments under fourteenth amendment to federal constitution and Art. I, Secs. 8 and 10 of Connecticut Constitution. At a
minimum, parties to workers’ compensation claim seeking transfer to Second Injury Fund must have opportunity to re-
view evidence presented to medical panel and panel’s findings prior to its decision. Identity of panel members must be
disclosed with opportunity for parties to object. Parties must have opportunity to present their evidence and arguments
to panel, panel must have at least one member who is an expert in field of medicine applicable to claimant’s injuries, and
there must be some level of review by commissioner to insure application by panel of appropriate legal standards and
opportunity for correction of clearly erroneous factual findings. 257 C. 481, see also 257 C. 520, 257 C. 527. Trial court
abused its discretion by failing to inquire into or investigate further defendant’s allegation, made following his conviction
but before sentencing, that he knew one of the jurors in his case from a prior criminal relationship; trial court must con-
duct a preliminary inquiry, on the record, whenever it is presented with any allegations of jury misconduct in a criminal
case, regardless of whether an inquiry is requested by counsel. 259 C. 75. Unnecessary for court to decide whether search
warrant was required to conduct a thermal imaging scan to detect heat emanating from the artificial lighting system used
to cultivate marijuana within commercial premises; affidavit supporting search warrant application for defendant’s com-
mercial premises contained sufficient other facts to establish probable cause for issuance of the warrant without the re-
sults of the thermal imaging scan. Id., 94. In future cases where defendant pleads not guilty by reason of mental disease
or defect and state substantially agrees with the claim so the trial is not an adversarial proceeding on the issue, trial court
must canvass defendant to ensure that his plea is made voluntarily and with full understanding of its consequences. 261
C. 309. Although some of victim’s statements were improperly admitted and defendant was unable to cross-examine
victim because she was unavailable, the error was harmless because the facts alleged in the statement were properly in-
troduced at trial from different sources. Id., 336. Defendant’s right to counsel was not violated because trial court was
not required to complete a more detailed inquiry or canvass defendant, sua sponte, about a potential conflict of interest

-- 81 of 129 --

224 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
re defense attorney when the attorney, as officer of the court, attested that there was no such conflict; state and federal
constitutional standards for review of ineffective assistance of counsel claims are identical. Id., 420. Trial court’s inquiry
into potential conflict of interest between defendant and his defense attorney was sufficient under the circumstances–trial
court learned that defendant and defense counsel could communicate during voir dire even though they were seated ap-
proximately eight to ten feet away from each other, that defendant wanted defense counsel to continue to represent him,
although he wanted counsel to sit next to him, that defense counsel assured court that he “absolutely” could represent his
client adequately and that on the first day of trial, counsel reported to court that their differences were resolved. Further-
more, defendant made no claim during voir dire or trial that defense counsel’s performance was deficient. 262 C. 276.
Where court instructed jury to disregard prejudicial testimony, burden is on defendant to establish that, in context of the
proceedings as a whole, the stricken testimony was so prejudicial, notwithstanding court’s curative instructions, that jury
reasonably cannot be presumed to have disregarded it. Id., 825. Housing authority’s failure to comply with statutory
notice requirement of Sec. 8-44(d) did not deprive plaintiffs of any use or enjoyment of their own property or deprive
them of any other preexisting property right. 265 C. 280. Trial court’s finding that defendant suffered from a severe
personality disorder that justified involuntary confinement and was therefore not a person who should be discharged
pursuant to Sec. 17a-593 was not an arbitrary or fundamentally unfair decision and did not violate the defendant’s sub-
stantive due process rights. Id., 697. In considering death sentence, application of reasonable doubt standard to measur-
ing balance between aggravating and mitigating factors is not constitutionally required. 266 C. 171. Trial court did not
violate defendant’s rights against self-incrimination under Art. I, Sec. 8 of Connecticut Constitution by ordering him to
undergo polygraph examination; record discloses that defendant waived any such claim by failing to raise such claim in
trial court and by affirmatively acquiescing to trial court’s order. 267 C. 576. Although only relevant evidence may be
elicited through cross-examination, evidence tending to show motive, bias or interest of an important witness is never
collateral or irrelevant. Cited. Id., 710. Sec. 17a-593(c), as applied to insanity acquittee, did not violate his procedural
due process rights. 268 C. 508. Trial court properly allowed inmate imprisoned with defendant while he awaited trial to
testify re incriminating statements that defendant made to him both prior to and after the inmate first met with police to
report the statements; inmate, after becoming an agent for the police, had not elicited defendant’s statements deliberately
and was no more than a passive listener; there is no constitutional violation when government informant merely listens
and reports. Id., 781. Alleged prosecutorial misconduct including remarks in closing argument did not deny defendant
due process; because it is necessary to review misconduct in the light of the entire trial, it is unnecessary for reviewing
court to apply the Golding test but rather court must apply the Williams factors; questions asked outside jury’s presence
during a hearing on motion to suppress were not improper. 269 C. 563. Prosecutor who asked defendant whether police
“put words in his mouth” did not improperly require defendant to comment on veracity of other witnesses; prosecutor
who asked re defendant’s testimony “Did all these witnesses get together and lie?” was not acting improperly because it
was defendant who initially suggested the witnesses were lying, not the state; defendant was not deprived right to fair
trial by prosecutor’s misdeeds, including prosecutor’s statement of personal opinions, gratuitous sarcasm and use of
defendant’s nickname, because of strength of the state’s case, trial court’s curative instructions and defendant’s failure to
object to the lesser improprieties. Id., 726. Sec. 17a-112(j) not unconstitutional as applied to termination of parental
rights of unfit mother upon proof by clear and convincing evidence that her child has been, among other things, uncared
for. 270 C. 382. Defendant’s due process right to have the state prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean that
defendant has a due process right to have state’s burden evaluated only on state’s evidence to the exclusion of the evi-
dence that defendant chose to present and that jury heard. 271 C. 218. Defendant’s claim that waiver rule violates the
privilege against self-incrimination held contrary to well-established law. Waiver rule does not compel defendant in a
fifth amendment sense to testify at all, but merely allows reviewing court to consider defendant’s testimony as part of the
record. Id. Denial of defendant’s right to be present during in-chambers inquiry was structural defect necessitating auto-
matic reversal of conviction and new trial without specific showing of harm. Id., 724. Temporal proximity to finding of
competency gives defendant with history of mental illness meaningful opportunity to discuss waiver of probable cause
hearing since defendant was competent when waiver occurred. Id., 740. Due process rights of defendant not violated by
trial court’s failure to canvass defendant regarding plea of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Id. Trial
court’s acceptance of jury’s corrected verdict, prior to jury’s discharge, does not violate defendant’s double jeopardy
rights. 272 C. 106. Defendant does not possess a state constitutional right of allocution in a capital sentencing hearing.
Id. Trial court’s failure to inform defendant of the range of possible penalties he would face upon conviction during its
canvass of defendant made defendant’s waiver of counsel “not knowing, intelligent and voluntary”, and therefore vio-
lated his right to counsel. 274 C. 818. Petitioner was not deprived of right to effective assistance of counsel because there
was no evidence that counsel failed to conform to the law and counsel had no obligation to pursue novel legal claims.
275 C. 451. “Street show up” identification not unconstitutional under Neil v. Biggers test, 409 U.S. 188. Court failed to
adopt new identification process standard. Id., 534. Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress tape-
recorded conversations between defendant and his cellmate in which defendant had portrayed himself as a leader and
active participant in victim’s murder and in destruction and disposal of victim’s body and personal effects; in applying
the four factors enunciated in State v. Asherman, defendant’s rights to due process were not violated. 277 C. 458. State’s
failure to preserve defendant’s cellmate as an available witness did not violate defendant’s right to compulsory process,
defendant having advanced no compelling policy considerations to warrant a broader reading of the state compulsory
process clause. Id. Deprivation of counsel at a probable cause hearing constitutes procedural error for which harmless
error review is proper. 279 C. 493. Sec. 53-21(a)(1), concerning risk of injury to a child, violated due process and did not
provide notice to defendant that conditions of apartment were so squalid that they posed a risk of injury to a child’s
mental health, where apartment was cluttered and had an unpleasant odor but showed no sign of mice or vermin, rotting
food or garbage. Id., 698. Disqualification of judge not required by defendant’s right to a probable cause hearing when
not specifically required by Sec. 54-46a. 281 C. 572. Defendant, by his violent conduct, forfeited his right to represent
himself. Id., 613. State constitutional right to counsel is triggered at the same time as federal constitutional right to
counsel, at arraignment. Id., 742. Reiterated previous holdings that “Miranda” warnings not necessary when defendant
informed numerous times that he is not under arrest and can leave the police station. 283 C. 598. Although constitution

-- 82 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 225
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
guarantees defendant counsel that is effective, it does not guarantee counsel whom defendant will like. 284 C. 597.
Standard of review in evaluating habeas petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel is whether there
is a reasonable probability that, but for appellate counsel’s failure to raise the issue on appeal, petitioner would have
prevailed on his direct appeal. 286 C. 707. Violation of constitutional rights where defendant charged with possession of
narcotics under Sec. 21-279(a) and possession of narcotics with intent to sell under Sec. 21-277(a) where charges arose
from the same act or transaction and information alleges crimes committed on same date, at same location and with same
narcotic. 288 C. 345. A defendant personally must waive the fundamental right to a jury trial; counsel may not make that
decision as a matter of trial strategy; in the absence of a written waiver, trial court must canvass the defendant to ensure
that any waiver is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Id., 770. Defendant received ineffective assistance of counsel and
was entitled to a new trial when trial counsel refused to present witnesses to support third party culpability defense and
there was a reasonable probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the jury’s verdict. 290 C. 502. Until scientific
research produces more definitive answers re various identification procedures, due process does not require the suppres-
sion of a photographic identification that is not the product of a double-blind sequential procedure, and in this case, the
procedures employed, although not ideal, were within the acceptable parameters of effective and fair police work and
satisfy due process requirements; photographic identifications at issue were reliable under the totality of the circum-
stances and therefore admissible at trial (opinion concurring in the judgment). 291 C. 122. Defendant was not deprived
of impartial jury when juror was dismissed due to his actions toward marshal and responses to trial court’s questions. Id.,
769. Due process was violated when resentencing on remand effectively enlarged defendant’s original sentence by sub-
stituting term of probation for term of special parole, thereby exposing defendant to incarceration for an additional ten-
year period; resentencing did not violate double jeopardy where defendant challenged legality of sentences and not va-
lidity of conviction, and trial court was free to refashion entire sentence for each crime within confines of the original
sentencing package as long as the entire sentence had not been fully served. 292 C. 417. Trial court did not abuse its
discretion by precluding defense counsel from asking venirepersons specifically about self-defense. Id., 656. Defen-
dant’s due process rights were not violated because there was manifest necessity to declare a mistrial on basis of totality
of the circumstances when prosecutor unexpectedly became seriously ill during complex trial and no other prosecutor
could have assumed duties within the time constraints of existing jurors. 295 C. 1. Trial court improperly denied state’s
motion to dismiss state employee’s due process claims alleging stock had been taken without affording right to hearing
or other process, those claims having been premised on state constitutional taking claim that trial court should have
dismissed. 296 C. 186. State constitution does not provide defendant with greater compulsory process rights than under
federal constitution. Id., 476. Connecticut due process clause does not provide greater protection than the federal consti-
tution with respect to resentencing and application of the aggregate package theory. 297 C. 262. Neither privilege against
self-incrimination, right to counsel, right to present a defense or right to confrontation mandates that custodial interroga-
tion, advisement of Miranda rights and any resulting statements of defendant be recorded. 298 C. 537. Defendant was
not deprived of his rights to a jury trial and due process when trial court, at sentencing, considered evidence related to
crimes of which defendant was acquitted by the jury, because the evidence relied on by court in sentencing defendant,
i.e. his criminal record, the presentence investigation report, his flight to avoid arrest and sworn trial testimony, had the
necessary minimal indicium of reliability. 301 C. 669. Defendant’s decision to forgo a jury determination in capital fel-
ony sentencing proceeding and opt for sentencing by a three-judge panel was knowing, voluntary and intelligent; formu-
laic canvass of defendant is not required and validity of jury waiver is determined by examination of totality of the cir-
cumstances. 303 C. 71. Court’s limiting instruction on aggravating factor of committing murder in “an especially
heinous, cruel or depraved manner” that permits proof by callousness or indifference to the additional pain, suffering or
torture that defendant’s intentional conduct inflicted on the victim does not render aggravating factor unconstitutionally
vague. Id. Death penalty does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment; holdings in 230 C. 183 and 238 C. 389 reaf-
firmed. Id. Rights afforded crime victims do not grant a victim party status under statutes that govern appeals in criminal
matters. 304 C. 330. It is not a violation for the sole aggravating factor found by the jury re a capital felony, namely,
murder committed for pecuniary gain under Sec. 53a-46a(i)(6), to duplicate an element of the underlying crime of capi-
tal felony by murder for hire under Sec. 53a-54b(2); evidence that codefendant had said “I’ve got a job for you” and that
defendant made preparations for the murder and received a snowmobile after the victim was killed was sufficient to
support finding of probable cause that defendant committed murder for pecuniary gain. 305 C. 101, but see 318 C. 1.
Where the state’s evidence in support of the conclusion that multiple thefts were part of a single scheme or course of
conduct, pursuant to Sec. 53a-121, was so overwhelming, and where that evidence was uncontroverted by defendant, the
trial court’s improper failure to instruct the jury that it could aggregate the value of the property stolen in the individual
thefts only if it first concluded that the thefts were part of one scheme or course of conduct did not contribute to the
verdict and was harmless error. Id., 806. In the absence of improper state action, the admission of identification evidence
implicates due process principles only when the evidence is so extremely unreliable that its admission would deprive
defendant of his right to a fair trial. 312 C. 687. Preclusion of proffered demonstrative evidence by which defendant
sought to physically display to jury how his alleged disability prevented him from performing two mobility based field
sobriety tests under any conditions did not infringe on constitutional right to present a defense. 313 C. 140. Automatic
reversal, not harmless error review, is the exceptional remedy for instances of structural defect of constitutional magni-
tude, and the state’s use of unreliable eyewitness identifications resulting from unduly suggestive police procedures is
not one of the rare circumstances necessitating a new trial. 314 C. 131. Retroactive application of amended civil action
statute of limitations, Sec. 52-577d, to revive an otherwise time barred claim does not violate defendant’s substantive due
process rights; court has never recognized a vested right in the lapsing of a statute of limitations; state constitution does
not provide greater protection to defendant’s interest in the lapse of a statute of limitations than is afforded under federal
constitution; however, retroactive application of statute that would extend a lapsed criminal statute of limitations would
violate the ex post facto clause of the federal constitution. 317 C. 357. Vacatur remedy set forth in 308 C. 242 applies to
the double jeopardy violation caused by cumulative homicide convictions arising from the killing of a single victim. Id.,
741. Cruel and unusual punishments are prohibited under the due process provisions; the death penalty as imposed fol-
lowing the enactment of P.A. 12-5 repealing the death penalty only for those felonies committed on or after April 25,

-- 83 of 129 --

226 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
2012, is so out of step with contemporary standards of decency as to violate the ban on excessive and disproportionate
punishment; the prospective abolition of the death penalty also violates the due process provisions because it no longer
serves any legitimate penological purpose. 318 C. 1. Right to bail not denied where trial court set monetary bond as a
condition of insanity acquittee’s release where acquittee was charged with committing new, violent crimes while housed
at maximum security psychiatric facility, and acquittee could not post that bond and was transferred to custody of Com-
missioner of Correction for temporary pretrial detention. 319 C. 288. Presumption of prejudice in jury tampering cases
articulated in 347 U.S. 227 remains good law with respect to external interference with jury’s deliberative process via
private communication, contact or tampering with jurors that relates directly to the matter being tried; once triggered,
presumption requires state to prove that there was no reasonable possibility that tampering affected the impartiality of
the jury. 320 C. 265. The bar on appellate relief under the victim’s rights amendment merely prohibits the court from
granting any relief that would directly affect the judgment in a criminal case or otherwise abridge the substantive rights
of a defendant; provision barring appellate relief does not deprive the court of jurisdiction over writs of error arising from
the victim’s rights amendment; focus of prohibition on appellate relief is on the substance of the relief, not on the identity
of the party seeking the relief, and prohibition was intended to apply to any person seeking a prohibited form of relief,
including victims; prohibition imposes same limitations on writs of error that it would impose on appeals by victims, if
they were statutorily authorized; victim’s rights amendment does not deprive victims of their right to file a writ of error
to enforce their constitutional rights, it also does not expand their rights to seek a form of appellate relief that previously
had been barred by statute. 326 C. 512. When it is undisputed and the arrest warrant application clearly alleges that
criminal misconduct was perpetrated against victim specifically, the arrest warrant constitutes a sufficient determination
of status as victim to trigger the rights afforded by this article. 327 C. 173. In-chambers, off-the-record disposition con-
ferences between the prosecuting attorney, defense counsel, and the presiding judge are not court proceedings the ac-
cused has the right to attend, consequently, neither does the victim or his or her authorized representative have a right to
attend them. Id. The right to bail is extinguished upon conviction, i.e., a finding of guilt, accepted by the court. Id., 932.
The proper framework, for state constitutional purposes, for evaluating the reliability of an identification that is the result
of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure requires that, to obtain a pretrial hearing, defendant has the initial
burden of offering some evidence that a system variable undermined the reliability of the eyewitness identification. If
defendant meets this burden, the state must then offer evidence demonstrating that the identification was reliable in light
of all relevant system and estimator variables. If the state adduces such evidence, defendant must then prove a very
substantial likelihood of misidentification. If defendant meets that burden of proof, the identification must be suppressed.
330 C. 91. Connecticut constitution contains a more protective prophylactic rule concerning the right against compelled
self-incrimination than the Federal constitution and the standard set forth in Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, thus,
police officers are required to clarify an ambiguous request for counsel by a defendant before they can continue the in-
terrogation. 331 C. 318. On motion for new trial based on juror misconduct, presumption of prejudice applies if defen-
dant can demonstrate that juror consulted a dictionary and was exposed to a definition of a material term that substan-
tially differed from the legal definition provided by the court, shifting the burden to the state to show that this exposure
was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; ultimate inquiry is whether there is a reasonable possibility that extrinsic ma-
terial could have affected the verdict. 341 C. 387. Defendant’s right to confront witness was not violated because the
defendant was permitted to ask the victim a number of questions regarding the existence of a civil action, as well as to
probe for any inconsistencies between the witness’s testimony and the civil complaint. 342 C. 239.
Cited. 1 CA 373. Trial court abused its discretion in denying defendant’s motions for continuance of trial so as to
permit him to be represented by the counsel of his choice. Id., 669. Although trial court’s charge concerning the defen-
dant’s capacity to distinguish right from wrong was in error since it involved the abandoned M’Naghten test, when re-
viewed in the context of the entire trial it did not violate defendant’s fundamental constitutional rights. Id., 697. Due
process at sentencing discussed where court considered facts which concerned counts dismissed pursuant to plea bargain.
Id., 724. Cited. 2 CA 127. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 204. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 219. Right to speedy,
public trial by impartial jury and right to assert privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id. Decision in 2 CA 551 et seq.;
judgment of appellate court reversed and case remanded to court with direction to reinstate judgment of trial court, see
199 C. 231. Due process cited. Id., 551. Right to fair trial cited. Id., 617. Cited. 3 CA 148. Effective assistance of counsel
and due process cited. Id. Fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 166. Fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 339. Right to speedy trial cited. Id. Rights of confrontation and due process, and right to present witnesses in
own behalf cited; right to fair trial cited. Id., 374. State constitutional question relative to burden of proof beyond a rea-
sonable doubt cited. Id., 650. Due process and constitutional right to a fair trial cited. 4 CA 54. Cited. Id., 451; Id., 514.
Effective assistance of counsel cited. 5 CA 79. Due process cited. Id., 113. Denial of due process cited; fair trial cited. Id.,
277. Cited. Id., 369. Due process cited. Id. Due process cited; fundamental constitutional right cited, Id., 378. Due process
cited. Id., 500. Cited. Id., 556. Right to compulsory process cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 571. Due process cited; fair
trial cited. Id., 599. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 612. Effective assistance of counsel; issue of fundamental
constitutional significance cited. 6 CA 24. Right to effective assistance of counsel is not guaranteed to defendant in civil
proceeding. Id., 83. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 124. Right to a fair trial cited. Id. Consti-
tutional right of confrontation cited; fair trial cited. Id., 164. Robbery in second degree not a lesser included offense of
robbery in the first degree; effect of attempted substitution discussed. Id., 247. Right to notice of crime charged cited. Id.
Deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague or over broad cited. Id., 407. Cited. Id., 471. Ineffective assis-
tance of counsel cited. Id., 518. Constitutional rights of due process cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 546.
Cited. Id., 680. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right to trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 667. Fundamental
constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id. Due process right for conviction only upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt
cited. Id. Cited. 7 CA 1. Fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id. Waiver of constitutional right to remain
silent cited. Id. Cited. Id., 27. Right to jury trial cited. Id. Due process cited. Id.; Id., 95. Cited. Id., 149. Due process cited.
Id. Compulsory process cited. Id. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 180. Does not guarantee the right of
hybrid representation. Id., 217. Cited. Id., 257; Id., 326. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 445. Denial of effective as-
sistance of counsel cited. Id. Constitutional right of defendant to testify cited. Id. Cited. Id., 457.

-- 84 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 227
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Right of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due process right to fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 470. Fundamental
right to a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 477. Fundamental right to a fair trial cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 503. Rights to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 532; Id., 701. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id.,
726; 8 CA 35. Right to fair trial and impartial jury cited. Id. Cited. Id., 44. Constitutional right to confrontation and due
process right to call witnesses in defense cited. Id. Cited. Id., 63. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 96. Right to confront opponent cited. Id. Cited. Id., 111. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Fundamental con-
stitutional right to notice of nature of charges cited. Id., 153. Right to confront accuser cited. Id., 190. Cited. Id., 216. Due
process and right to counsel; right to confrontation; right to fair trial, cited. Id. Right to public trial, impartial jury and
counsel present; due process; right of confrontation, cited. Id., 273. Cited. Id., 317. State right to confront witnesses and
due process right to fair trial cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 342. State due process rights cited. Id.,
345. Due process cited. Id., 387. Cited. Id., 399. Ineffective assistance of counsel; constitutional right to notice, cited. Id.,
478. Violation of a fundamental constitutional right; right of confrontation and right against self-incrimination, cited. Id.,
491. Cited. Id., 528. Deprivation of constitutional right and denial of fair trial; due process, cited. Id. Constitutional right
to fair notice cited. Id., 545. Deprivation of a fair trial and due process cited. Id., 566. Denial of effective assistance of
counsel cited. Id. Due process right to a fair trial cited. Id., 581. Due process rights; fundamental constitutional right,
cited. Id., 620. Due process rights cited. Id., 631. Due process cited. Id., 667. Constitutional right of cross-examination
cited. Id., 673. Right to fair, speedy trial; due process, cited. 9 CA 74. Deprivation of effective assistance of counsel cited.
Id., 79. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 133. Due process cited. Id., 141. Cited. Id., 147. Due process cited.
Id. Fundamental constitutional right not to testify cited. Id., 169; judgment reversed, see 205 C. 370. Right to assistance
of counsel; right to be free from compelled self-incrimination; due process right to fair trial; right to testify in own behalf,
cited. Id., 208. Denial of due process cited. Id., 228. “Use of an information to charge an offense not otherwise entitled
to a trial by jury does not thereby entitle a defendant to a trial by jury ...”. Id., 255. Constitutional requirement of proof
beyond a reasonable doubt; unconstitutional dilution of burden of proof, cited. Id., 275. Denial of due process cited. Id.,
313. Denial of effective assistance of counsel; due process rights; right to counsel, cited. Id., 340. Due process cited. Id.,
464. Due process rights and clause cited. Id., 548. Cited. Id., 587. Constitutional right to self-representation; right to
counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 631; judgment reversed, see 205 C. 352. Constitutional rights to confront and cross-examine
witnesses cited. Id., 631; judgment reversed, see 205 C. 352. Right to be tried before an impartial jury; constitutional
right to fair trial, cited. Id., 656. Constitutional right to a fair trial cited. Id., 667. Right of confrontation; due process
rights; constitutional right of cross-examination; right of compulsory production of witnesses, cited. 10 CA 103. Right
to due process cited. Id., 130. Right to due process and effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 147. Right to assistance
of counsel under state constitution cited. Id., 265. Cited. Id., 279. Fundamental constitutional right cited. Id., 302. Due
process and fundamental constitutional right cited. Id., 330. Cited. Id., 347. Constitutional right to due process cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 361. Constitutional due process claims; right to fair trial and impartial jury, cited. Id. Right to due process;
rights under state and federal constitutions, cited. Id., 404. Denial of due process cited. Id., 422. Constitutional right
against self-incrimination cited. Id., 428. Due process rights cited. Id., 457. Proof of each element beyond a reasonable
doubt; claim of insufficient evidence, cited. Id., 462. Fundamental constitutional right that state establish guilt beyond
reasonable doubt; instructional error, cited. Id., 474. Due process and effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 520. In-
effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 546. Defendant not entitled under due process clause to cross-examine wit-
nesses in a sentencing hearing; due process cited. Id., 591. Cited. Id., 624. Constitutional right to an impartial jury cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 643. Deprivation of fundamental constitutional right and fair trial cited. Id., 659. Cited. Id., 683. Right to
impartial jury cited. Id. Clarification of instructions is mandatory when any member of jury manifests confusion about
the law. Id., 697. Constitutionally protected right to properly instructed jury; fundamental constitutional right to due
process and a fair trial, cited. Id. Constitutional right to fair notice of charges cited. Id., 709. Cited. 11 CA 80. Right to
fair notice of charges cited. Id. Constitutional right to testify and present a defense cited. Id., 102. Constitutional rights
to an adequately instructed jury and conviction only on proof beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id. Constitutionally void
for vagueness; due process; burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, cited. Id., 122. Constitutional rights to
conviction on proper evidence by impartial jury and to confrontation cited. Id., 236. Constitutional right to confront ad-
verse witnesses cited. Id., 238. Due process; unconstitutionally vague, cited. Id., 316. Due process cited. Id., 425. Cited.
Id., 473. Due process violation implicating fairness of trial cited. Id., 575. Due process cited. Id., 665. Rights of confron-
tation, compulsory process and due process, cited. Id., 673. Constitutional right to fair trial and cross-examination cited.
Id., 684. Cited. Id., 693. Deprivation of due process cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 699. Due process rights cited. Id.,
709. Cited. 12 CA 1. Constitutional right to a speedy trial; constitutional right to notice, cited. Id. Deprivation of funda-
mental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id., 74. Due process cited. Id., 101. Cited. Id., 163. Deprivation of fair
trial and due process cited. Id. Fundamental constitutional right cited. Id., 172. Constitutional right of confrontation
cited. Id., 196. Cited. Id., 221. Right to due process cited. Id., 225. Due process rights cited. Id., 239. Due process; un-
constitutionally vague, cited. Id., 258. Cited. Id., 268. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 306. Constitutional right to
a fair trial cited. Id., 320. Cited. Id., 364. Constitutional right to speedy trial cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel
cited. Id., 385. Cited. Id., 395. Right to fair trial and due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 427. Constitutional right not to
testify; opportunity for cross-examination, cited. Id., 481. Constitutional right to a fair trial cited 13 CA 40. “... denial of
cross-examination subject to harmless error analyses.” Id., 60. Cited. Id., 76. Deprivation of a fundamental constitutional
right and a fair trial cited. Id. Exculpatory evidence unconstitutionally suppressed cited. Id., 133. Constitutional right to
present a defense; constitutional right of confrontation, cited. Id., 139. Constitutional right to a unanimous jury verdict
cited. Id., 288. Cited. Id., 368. Right of confrontation; fundamental constitutional right that guilt be proved beyond a
reasonable doubt, cited. Id. Right to confront accusers; privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id., 378. Constitutional
right to a fair trial cited. Id., 386. Ineffective assistance of counsel; constitutional right to counsel, cited. Id., 413. Rights
to due process; right to fair trial, cited. Id., 420. Due process purposes; fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial
cited. Id., 438. Due process clause and rights cited. Id., 554. Fundamental constitutional right and right to fair trial cited.
Id., 576. Constitutional right to proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 578. Fundamental constitutional right
to proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 596. Cited. Id., 687. Denial of fair trial; denial of due process, cited.

-- 85 of 129 --

228 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
14 CA 6. Due process guarantees of this article have been held to encompass protection against double jeopardy. Id., 10.
Due process violation; fundamental constitutional right and fair trial, cited. Id., 88. Due process cited. Id., 108. Effective
assistance of counsel cited. Id., 140. Fundamental constitutional right and fair trial; denial of due process, cited. Id., 146.
Right of confrontation; right against self-incrimination; right to due process, cited. Id., 159. Essentials of due process and
fair treatment cited. Id., 205. Cited. Id., 272. Unconstitutionally vague; due process rights; double jeopardy clause, cited.
Id. Right to confrontation cited. Id., 309. Right to confrontation is right to cross-examine but not right to all-inclusive
cross-examination. Id., 322. Privilege against self-incrimination; rights to confrontation, cited. Id. Cited. Id., 451. Due
process; right to confront witnesses against, cited. Id. Right to counsel; right against self-incrimination; right to confront
witnesses against; right to fair trial, cited. Id., 586. State due process clause cited. Id., 605. Presumption of innocence and
state’s burden of proof; proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; fairness of trial; due process; right to testify, cited. Id.,
657. Cited. Id., 688. Right to due process; right to notice of charges; right to confront and cross-examine witnesses;
constitutional right to fair trial; burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt, cited. Id. Denial of due process and a
fair trial cited. 15 CA 34. Constitutional right that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id., 58. Right to due
process; right to confront witnesses against him, cited. Id., 122. Constitutional requirement to prove guilt beyond reason-
able doubt cited; unconstitutional vagueness cited; fundamental constitutional right and fair trial cited. Id., 161. Ineffec-
tive assistance of counsel cited; right to due process cited. Id., 197. “This court will not impose a degree of certitude as
to date, time and place that will render prosecution of those who sexually abuse children impossible”; constitutional re-
quirement satisfied by information providing time frame with distinct beginning and equally clear end within which
crimes are alleged to have been committed. Id., 222. Cited. Id., 251. Right to present defense cited; due process cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 289. Due process rights cited; right to fair and impartial jury cited; right to confront and cross-examine wit-
nesses cited. Id., 342. Due process rights cited. Id., 589; Id., 641. Cited. Id., 704. Right not to be convicted except upon
proof beyond reasonable doubt cited; right to fair trial and due process cited. Id. Cited. 16 CA 18. Due process right to a
fair trial cited. Id. Privilege against self-incrimination and right to remain silent cited. Id., 75. Cited. Id., 184; Id., 318.
Constitutional right to due process cited; rights of confrontation cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 333. Constitu-
tional right to have issues of fact decided by a jury and not by a court cited; right to have elements of offense proven
beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 346. Cited. Id., 358; Id., 402. Constitutional right to fair trial cited; right to due pro-
cess cited. Id. Constitutional right to fair trial cited. Id., 455. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 518. Right of
confrontation cited; right against self-incrimination cited; due process cited. Id., 601. Constitutional due process safe-
guards cited. 17 CA 17. Right not to be convicted except on proof beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 104. Cited. Id.,
174. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Acceptance of admission of parole violation requires only that court advise defen-
dant of his right to a hearing to contest alleged violations. Id., 226. Constitutional right of proof of guilt beyond a reason-
able doubt cited. Id., 243. Cited. Id., 257. Rights of due process and right to remain silent cited; constitutional right to a
fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 359. Right to compulsory process cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited; due
process cited. Id., 447. Due process cited; right to confront accusers cited. Id., 466. Unconstitutionally diluted state’s
burden of proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited; due process rights cited; fundamental rights to a fair trial cited.
Id., 490. Cited. Id., 602. Privilege against self-incrimination cited; due process cited; right to fair trial cited. Id. Right to
confrontation cited. Id., 648. Cited. 18 CA 134. Due process cited; rights under state constitution cited. Id. Due process
cited. Id., 175. Destruction of evidence discussed. Id., 223. Deprivation of due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 273. Rights
to confrontation cited; right to effective cross-examination cited; right to a public trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 297. Rights to
due process, effective assistance of counsel, compulsory process and to present a defense cited. Id. Right to assistance of
counsel cited. Id., 368. Due process and constitutional right to a fair trial cited. Id., 602. Cited. Id., 694. Right to due
process cited; right to impartial jury cited. Id. Due process cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 716. Due
process cited. 19 CA 48. Cited. Id., 195. Due process cited. Id. Due process cited; right to present a defense and compul-
sory process cited; right to be informed of nature of charge cited. Id., 125. Cited. Id., 179. Nature of charges against cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 445. Rights to confront accusers and to due process cited. Id. Denial of right to speedy trial cited; due
process cited. Id., 495. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 521. Cited. Id., 554, 560. Inform of nature and cause of accu-
sation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 571. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt cited. Id., 594. Right not to testify cited. Id., 618. Due
process rights cited. Id., 640. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 646. Denial of fundamental constitu-
tional right of fair trial cited; due process cited. Id., 654. Cited. Id., 668; Id., 674. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 695. Right to be present cited; right to acquittal unless proven guilty of each element beyond a reasonable
doubt cited. Id. Right to due process cited. 20 CA 27. Right to impartial jury and fair trial cited; constitutional due pro-
cess right and fair trial cited; right to unanimous verdict cited. Id., 40. Rights to due process and fair trial cited. Id., 75.
Cited. Id., 101. Due process cited; right to confrontation cited. Id., 115. Cited. Id., 168; Id., 193. Double jeopardy cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 241. Constitutional rights to due process cited. Id., 271. Denial of due process cited. Id., 386. Right to due
process cited. Id., 410. Due process right to establish a defense cited. Id., 430. Right to be apprised of charges cited. Id.,
495. Due process guarantees interpreted as including protection against double jeopardy cited; due process rights cited.
Id., 572. Cited. Id., 586. Unconstitutional dilution of state’s burden of proof. Cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague cited;
due process cited. Id., 599. Due process rights cited. Id., 643. Cited. Id., 691. Protection against self-incrimination cited.
Id. “Statute does not limit the definition of ‘any person’ to adults.” Id., 694. Due process rights cited; vagueness and void
for vagueness cited. Id. Due process right to fair trial cited. Id., 721. Due process cited; right of confrontation cited; fair
trial cited. Id., 737. Cited. 21 CA 48. Due process rights and right to a fair trial cited. Id. Cited; due process rights cited.
Id., 138. Cited; right to confrontation cited; constitutional due process claims cited. Id., 162. Due process cited. Id., 172.
Constitutional rights to fair trial cited; due process rights cited. Id., 235. Cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id.,
260. Cited; right to confrontation and confrontation clause cited; opportunity to cross-examine adverse witnesses cited;
restrictions on cross-examination cited. Id., 291. Violation of fundamental constitutional right and deprivation of fair trial
cited; due process clause cited; constitutional right to adequate instruction cited. Id., 299. Denial of due process cited.
Id., 331. Privilege against self-incrimination cited. Id., 386. Due process right to present a defense and right to a fair trial
cited. Id., 403. Cited; right to confront witnesses cited. Id., 411. Rights of due process and ability to prepare a defense
cited. Id., 431. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 449. Right to cross-examine and confront witnesses cited; right to trial

-- 86 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 229
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
by fair and impartial jury cited. Id., 467. Precluded from effective cross-examination cited. Id., 474. Violation of due
process rights cited. Id., 496. No due process violation cited. Id., 557. Fundamental right to a fair trial cited. Id., 622. Due
process rights cited. Id., 654. Right to fair trial, due process cited; right to impartial jury cited. Id., 688. Privilege against
self-incrimination cited. 22 CA 53. Right not to be tried twice for same offense cited; double jeopardy claim cited. Id.,
73. Due process rights cited. Id., 108. Cited; guarantees right to present closing argument cited; right to confront adverse
witnesses through cross-examination cited. Id., 207. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited; due process rights
cited. Id., 303. Due process and a fair trial cited; constitutional duty to disclose exculpatory evidence cited. Id., 329. Due
process rights cited. Id., 340. Right to trial by jury cited; due process cited. Id., 440. Due process cited; deprivation of
fair trial cited. Id., 449. Due process rights cited. Id., 477. Cited. Id., 531. Rights to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 567.
Right to be informed of charges cited. Id. Deprivation of due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 601.
Right to confrontation cited. Id., 665. Cited. Id., 669. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague
and over broad; deprivation of due process cited. Id., 683. Right to confront accusers cited; due process cited; privilege
against self-incrimination cited. 23 CA 1. Constitutional right not to testify cited; defendant’s rights cited; resort to
privilege cited. Id., 28. Due process rights cited. Id., 50. Cited. Id., 63; judgment reversed, see 220 C. 112. Denial of ef-
fective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right to fair trial before impartial jury cited. Id. Right to confront witnesses
against him cited. Id., 83. Taking without due process of law cited. Id., 115. Right to present a defense cited; right to
assistance of counsel cited; no enlargement of crime, constitutional infringement cited. Id., 151. Right to present a de-
fense cited; right to fair or impartial trial cited; dilution or shifting of state’s burden of proof cited. Id., 160. Due process
guarantees cited. Id., 215. Cited. Id., 221. Unconstitutional vagueness cited; fundamental due process right to fair warn-
ing cited. Id., 272. Cited. Id., 358. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Right to due process, confrontation cited. Id., 392.
Respondent’s right to confrontation and cross-examination here are statutory not constitutional. Id., 410. Constitutional
rights to confrontation and to cross-examination cited. Id. Rights to due process cited. Id., 431. Violation of constitu-
tional rights by relieving state of burden of proof cited; deprivation of right to due process cited. Id., 479. Deprivation of
fundamental constitutional right and fair trial cited; defendant convicted of offense of which he was never given notice
has been deprived of fundamental constitutional right. Id., 502. Right to fair trial; deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 532.
Due process rights cited. Id., 564; judgment reversed in part, see 220 C. 400. Rights to due process cited; right to be
present cited. Id., 642; judgment reversed, see 219 C. 629. Right of confrontation cited. Id., 667. Ineffective assistance
of counsel cited. Id., 692. Privilege not to incriminate self cited; “Miranda” warnings cited. Id., 705. Due process cited.
Id., 746; judgment reversed, see 221 C. 595. Due process and deprivation of fair trial cited. 24 CA 27; judgment reversed,
see 220 C. 652. Due process rights cited. Id., 57. Violation of due process cited. Id., 146. Ineffective assistance of coun-
sel cited. Id., 152. Cited. Id., 195. Due process right to present a defense cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id. Right to
due process cited; violation of constitutional rights by jury instruction cited. Id., 264. Due process and right against
compelled self-incrimination cited; “Miranda” rights cited; use of statement for impeachment purposes made following
“Miranda” warnings discussed. Id., 295. Unconstitutionally vague and over broad cited. Id., 300. Right to be informed
of nature and cause of accusation against him cited. Id., 316. Right to speedy trial cited. Id., 408. Due process rights cited.
Id., 473; judgment reversed in part, see 221 C. 788. Due process rights cited. Id., 493. Due process violations cited. Id.,
541. Due process assertion of recognized specific defense cited. Id., 556. Due process cited. Id., 563. A probation revo-
cation hearing is not a criminal prosecution encompassing right to trial by jury. Id., 575. Right to jury trial cited. Id.
Denial of due process cited. Id. Fundamental right to establish a defense cited. Id., 586. Right to due process cited. Id.,
598. Due process cited. Id., 612. Cited. Id., 624. Due process cited. Id. Right not to testify cited; right to establishment
of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited; right to fair trial, due process cited. Id., 642. Right to due process and to present
a defense cited. Id., 678. Rights to due process cited; right to be convicted only on proof beyond reasonable doubt cited.
Id., 685. Pertains to trial counsel not habeas counsel; effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 723. Cited. Id., 729. Con-
frontation rights cited. 25 CA 21. Right to due process cited; fair trial cited. Id., 149. Cited. Id., 171. Deprivation of a fair
trial, constitutional right to a fair trial, denial of due process rights cited. Id., 181. Right to a fair trial, due process cited.
Id., 243. Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses cited. Id., 255. Cited. Id., 282; Id., 334. Right to a fair trial cited.
Id. Right to confront cited. Id., 354. Right to due process and to cross-examine cited. Id., 421; judgment reversed, see
222 C. 299. Cited. Id., 433. Right to fair trial and impartial jury cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id. Right to fair trial
and to present a defense cited. Id., 456. Rights to due process and establishment of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited.
Id., 472. Right to confrontation cited; due process cited; right to an attorney cited; right to remain silent cited. Id., 503.
Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 565. Due process concerns of right to fair and adequate notice of charges
cited. Id., 619. Due process rights cited. Id., 646. Right to confrontation cited; right to impeach witnesses cited; uncon-
stitutional comment on defendant’s failure to testify cited. Id., 653; judgment reversed, see 223 C. 52. Right to due pro-
cess and fair trial cited; rights of confrontation and cross-examination cited. Id., 725. Right to effective assistance of
counsel and due process cited. Id., 734. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 741. Cited. 26 CA 10. Rights
to due process cited. Id. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 52. Cited. Id., 81. Right of confrontation and
cross-examination cited. Id. Due process, right to remain silent, “Miranda” warnings, right to fair trial cited. Id., 86.
Cited. Id., 125. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Violation of right to fair trial by failure to disclose exculpatory
information cited. Id., 242. Cited. Id., 259. Due process overtones cited. Id. Right to fair notice of crimes charged cited.
Id. Information on nature and cause of accusation cited. Id. Dilution of burden of proof in violation of right to fair trial
cited. Id. Right to unanimous jury verdict and right to fair trial cited. Id., 279. Cited. Id., 305. Right to cross-examine
witnesses cited. Id. Cited. Id., 331. Right to fair trial and due process cited. Id. Right to present a defense cited. Id., 367.
Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 395. Due process rights cited. Id., 433. Right to counsel cited; right to fair trial and
due process of law cited. Id., 472. Due process rights cited. Id., 553. Cited. Id., 625; judgment reversed, see 224 C. 656;
judgment of acquittal reversed, see 31 CA 452. Right to notice cited. Id. Conviction only on proof of each element of
offense beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 641. Cited. Id., 674. Right to due process cited. Id. Privileges against self-in-
crimination cited. Id. Rights of confrontation cited. Id. Constitutional speedy trial cited. Id., 698. Cited. Id., 758. Ineffec-
tive assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due process cited. Id. Right to public trial cited. Id. Rights to due process cited. Id.,
805. Due process cited; deprivation of fair trial cited. 27 CA 1. Right to cross-examine cited; right to fair trial cited. Id.,

-- 87 of 129 --

230 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
30. Right to present a defense cited. Id., 49. Right to present a defense cited; right to due process cited. Id., 73. Cited. Id.,
103. Right to reasonable notice of the charges cited. Id. Cited. Id., 128; Id., 171. Due process and a fair trial cited. Id.
Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right of cross-examination cited. Id., 370. Right to fair trial under due
process clauses cited. Id., 520. Cited. Id., 530. Fundamental protection of due process of law cited. Id., 558. Denial of
due process cited. Id., 601. Cited. Id., 654. Constitutional rights to notice cited. Id., 654. Cited. Id., 675. Ineffective as-
sistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 780. Deprivation of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Ineffective assistance
of counsel cited. Id., 794. Difference between identification and “resemblance” testimony and reliability of such testi-
mony where impermissibly suggestive identification procedures used discussed; due process rights cited. 28 CA 9. De-
nial of fair trial by being tried jointly cited. Id., 64. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of accusations cited. Id.,
91. Cited. Id., 126. Right to confront witnesses cited. Id. Confrontation rights cited. Id. Right not to be convicted except
upon proof beyond reasonable doubt of each element cited. Id., 161. Constitutional standard for confrontation cited;
rights to confront witnesses cited; dilution of state’s burden of proof cited. Id., 231. Due process clauses cited. Id., 283.
Constitutional rights to a fair trial cited. Id., 290. Right to an impartial jury cited. Id., 388. Cited. Id., 360; judgment re-
versed, see 229 C. 529. Right to be informed of nature of charge cited. Id. Constitutional right to a fair trial cited. Id.,
402. Cited. Id., 425. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Constitutional violation existing and deprivation of
a fair trial cited. Id., 444. Cited. Id., 474. Right to due process of law cited. Id. Deprivation of a fair trial cited. Id. Depri-
vation of fair trial cited; guarantees of due process cited. Id., 548. Cited. Id., 581; judgment reversed, see 226 C. 601.
Right to fair notice cited. Id. Dilution or shift of state’s burden of proof cited; issue of reasonable doubt cited; deprivation
of constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id., 638. Violation of due process rights by pretrial identification procedure
cited; unconstitutional procedure cited; deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 645. Cited. Id., 708. Right to a fair trial cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 721. Effective cross-examination cited. Id. Due process cited. Id. Fundamental right to a fair trial cited; due
process right to a fair trial cited. Id., 771. Due process rights and unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 825. Unconstitution-
ally vague cited. 29 CA 68; judgment reversed, see 227 C. 566. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited; unreliable evi-
dence and violation of fundamental fairness and guarantee of due process cited. Id., 162; judgment reversed, see 229 C.
397. Violation of a fundamental right, right to fair trial, right to present a defense and due process cited. Id., 262. Neces-
sity for expert witnesses in habeas proceedings involving ineffective assistance of counsel claims discussed. Id., 274.
Deprivation of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 283; judgment reversed, see
228 C. 795. Violation of due process cited; privilege against self-incrimination cited; right to confront accusers cited. Id.,
359. Due process rights cited. Id., 409. Due process of law cited. Id., 452. Cited. Id., 524. Right of due process and de-
fective instructions; constitutional right to fair trial cited. Id. Rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 533. Cited.
Id., 584. Due process clauses cited. Id. So vague and indefinite as to violate due process cited; vagueness challenge,
provision for fair warning cited; fair notice cited. Right to confront witnesses against and to present witnesses in own
behalf. Id., 642. Unconstitutionally vague cited; due process right to fair warning cited. Id., 683. Deprivation of due
process cited. Id., 744. Right to fair trial and due process; right to select jury from fair cross section of community cited.
Id., 754. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited; constitutionally guaranteed right to understand consequences cited. Id.,
773. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 817. Cited. Id., 843. Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Fun-
damental right to acquittal where there if failure to prove beyond a reasonable doubt each and every element of crime
charged cited. Id., 825. Cited. 30 CA 9. Right to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 68. Right to due process cited. Id.
Deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Fundamental fairness and due process
cited. Id., 108. Due process rights cited; right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to present a defense cited. Id.,
164; judgment reversed, see 229 C. 10. Unconstitutionally vague and over broad cited. Id., 224. Right to due process and
to present a defense cited. Id., 232. Right to acquittal when failure to prove beyond reasonable doubt each and every el-
ement of crime charged cited; due process cited. Id., 281. Cited. Id., 340. Right to due process and to cross-examine
witnesses cited. Id., 346. Cited. Id., 359. Right to speedy trial cited. Id. Due process and confrontation rights cited. Id.,
381. Right to due process cited. Id., 416. Cited. Id., 428. Due process of law; call or confront witnesses; establish a de-
fense and effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due process rights cited; right to present a defense cited; right of
cross-examination cited; denial of confrontation cited. Id., 470. Right to present a defense cited; right to fair trial cited.
Id., 527. Cited. Id., 606. Right to compulsory process and due process cited. Id., 654. Cited. Id., 677. Ineffective assis-
tance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. 31 CA 94. Right to effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial cited. Id. Rights to due
process and a fair trial cited. Id., 140. Cited. Id., 178. Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Right to confront
witnesses cited. Id. Precluded from cross-examining witness cited. Id. Cited. Id., 278. Right to public trial by impartial
jury cited. Id. Voir dire in obtaining fair and impartial jury cited. Id. Unconstitutionally broad jury instruction cited. Id.
Due process safeguards cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id., 312. Fundamental right to present a defense cited. Id.,
385. Cited. Id., 443. Denial of rights to due process cited. Id. Compulsory process and confrontation cited. Id. Unconsti-
tutionally vague cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague cited; prosecutorial misconduct cited; ineffective assistance of coun-
sel cited. Id., 497. Constitutional right to fair notice cited. Id., 548. Rights of notice and hearing and due process cited.
Id., 621. Cited. Id., 771. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited; due process right to fair trial cited. Id. Cited. 32
CA 21. Due process, fair trial before impartial jury cited. Id. Cited. Id., 38. Ineffective assistance of counsel and right to
speedy trial cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 84. Due process right to present a de-
fense, right to confrontation cited. Id., 178. Right to be informed of nature of charge cited; due process clauses cited. Id.,
217. Cited. Id., 224. Right not to be compelled to testify against himself cited; violation of due process cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 296. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 438. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right to
present a defense and to confront witnesses against him cited; fundamental right to fair trial cited. Id., 448. Due process
rights cited; right to fair trial cited. Id., 483. Prosecutorial misconduct and deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 505. Cited.
Id., 553. Due process concerns cited. Id. Cited. Id., 656. Due process considerations cited; over breadth or vagueness
cited. Id. Due process and fundamental right to present a defense cited; right to confrontation cited. Id., 687. Due process
rights cited. Id., 759. Cited. Id., 811. Privilege against self-incrimination cited; due process rights to a fair trial and to
establish a defense cited; right of confrontation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 831. Right to due process and fair trial cited. Id.
Unconstitutionally vague cited; fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial cited. Id., 854. Right to speedy trial cited.

-- 88 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 231
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
33 CA 49. Cited. Id., 60. Rights to due process and against self-incrimination cited; right to remain silent and “Miranda”
rights cited. Id. Rights to confrontation cited. Id., 90. Due process and confrontation rights cited. Id., 103. Due process
cited. Id., 107. Due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 116. Cited. Id., 126. Rights to due process and against self-incrim-
ination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 133. Right to due process cited. Id. Due process clauses cited. Id., 162. Right to effective
assistance of counsel and a fair trial cited; due process rights cited. Id., 171. Cited. Id., 184. Right to speedy trial and due
process cited. Id. Fair and impartial trial cited; rights to due process cited. Id., 205. Due process clauses cited; constitu-
tionally flawed cited. Id., 232. Cited. Id., 253. Confrontation or due process clauses cited; dilution of burden of proof
cited; deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Rights to due process cited; right to cross-examination cited. Id., 311. Cited. Id.,
339; judgment reversed on issues of sufficiency of evidence and jury misconduct, see 235 C. 502. Due process cited. Id.
Rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 368. Cited. Id., 432. Rights to due process cited; dilution of state’s burden
of proof cited; right not to be convicted except on proof beyond a reasonable doubt and right to fair trial cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 449. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id., 457. Cited. Id., 590. Right to due
process and to present a defense cited; unconstitutional dilution of the state’s burden of proving its case beyond a reason-
able doubt cited. Id., 616. Rights to confront accusers cited; right to cross-examine cited; right to due process of law
cited; protection against self-incrimination cited. Id., 647. Charge to jury cannot be given in the abstract without evidence
sufficient to provide guidance to the jury. Id., 743; judgment reversed, see 233 C. 502. Rights to due process cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 763. Rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id.; Id., 782. Right to due process cited; constitutional rights
cited. 34 CA 46. Cited. Id., 58. Fundamental element of due process and right to establish a defense of self-defense cited;
right to confrontation or cross-examination cited; privilege against compulsory self-incrimination cited; right not to
testify cited; right to impartial jury cited; rights to be present and participate in trial cited. Id. Rights to cross-examina-
tion, confrontation and a fair trial cited; improper instruction of jury cited. Id., 96. Cited. Id., 103. Constitutional due
process claims alleging prosecutorial misconduct cited; right to adequately instructed jury cited; right to fair trial cited.
Id. Right to due process cited. Id., 191. Cited. Id., 223; Id., 236. Due process guarantees cited; effective assistance of
counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 250. Right not to testify on own behalf cited; right to remain silent cited. Id. Cited. Id., 261.
Right to due process and a fair trial cited; right to remain silent and “Miranda” warnings cited; right of confrontation
cited. Id. Constitutional right to present defense cited. Id., 276. Fundamental element of due process, right to present a
defense cited. Id., 317. Cited. Id., 368, see also 233 C. 517. Standard of due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 411. Right to
due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Right to confrontation and to present a defense cited. Id., 473. Cited. Id., 557. Due
process cited; unusual punishment cited. Id. Violation of due process cited; privilege against self-incrimination cited;
right to confront accusers cited. Id., 595. Due process violation cited. Id., 599. Cited. Id., 610. Constitutional right to
present a defense cited. Id. Void for vagueness or unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 741. Cited. Id., 751; judgment re-
versed, see 233 C. 211. Right to remain silent and “Miranda” rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 823. Right to testify cited; right
to present a closing argument and to a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. 35 CA 51. Due process right to present a defense cited;
rights to confront and cross examine cited; right to fair trial cited. Id. Constitutional right to prepare a defense and due
process cited. Id., 173. Due process right cited. Id., 201, 202. Cited. Id., 405. Right to due process and notice cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 527. Ineffective assistance of counsel and violation of due process cited. Id. Right to present a defense and
denial of due process and a fair trial cited; right to adequately instructed jury cited. Id, 541. Right to present a defense
cited; failure to instruct jury and due process rights cited. Id., 609. Cited. Id., 699. Due process rights and failure to
properly instruct jury cited. Id. Violation of due process and fair trial cited; privilege against self incrimination and right
to confront accusers cited. Id., 714. Deprivation of fair trial from instruction diluting state’s burden of proof cited. Id.,
728. Cited. Id., 740. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 754. Due process rights cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of
counsel cited. Id., 762. Cited. Id., 781; Id., 839; 36 CA 41. Constitutional right not to take witness stand cited. Id. Due
process rights cited. Id., 59. Cited. Id., 76. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 123; Id., 161. Claim is due process and
fundamental fairness and a fair trial cited. Id. Right to fair trial by impartial jury cited; burden of proof constitutional in
nature cited. Id., 177. Cited. Id., 190. Fair trial and due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 216. Ineffective assistance of counsel
cited; fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 228. Right to confrontation and a fair trial cited. Id. Limitation of cross-examination
cited; dilution of state’s burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt cited; right to present witnesses cited; right to con-
frontation cited. Id., 250. Cited. Id., 282. Right to public trial by impartial jury cited; deprived of effective assistance of
counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 345. Confrontation rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 401. Due process and fair trial cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 417. Right to due process and to present a defense cited; assistance of counsel cited; right to disclosure of exculpa-
tory evidence cited; right to fair trial cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id. 440. Cited. Id., 462. “Miranda” warnings
cited; state constitutional issue cited. Id. Cited. Id., 473. Confrontation rights cited; right of cross-examination cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 516. Right to impartial jury and fair trial cited; due process clauses cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id., 525.
Cited. Id., 587. Due process rights cited. Id. Right to fair and impartial jury cited; right to speedy, public trial cited; right

Amendment XXIX Ratified amendment and publisher annotations.

to due process cited. Id., 631. Denial of effective assistance of counsel cited; due process cited. Id., 641. Right to counsel
cited; inadequate counsel cited; constitutional rights to present a defense, to a fair trial and due process cited. Id., 680.
Cited. Id., 695. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Due process right to fair trial and constitutional right to be
found guilty only on finding of proof beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id., 718. Cited. Id., 753. Improper prosecutorial
conduct and due process claims cited. Id. Right to confrontation cited. Id., 774. Due process rights and a fair trial cited;
right to confrontation cited; rights to an adequately instructed jury cited. Id., 805. Cited. Id., 821. Due process rights and
rights to present a defense cited. Id. Cited. 37 CA 21. Right to confront and cross-examine cited; unconstitutionally di-
luted state’s burden of proof cited. Id. Cited. Id., 40. Restricted cross-examination cited. Id. Cited. Id., 105. Rights to due
process cited. Id. Deprivation of fair trial by court’s marshaling of the evidence. Id., 180. Due process rights cited. Id.,
213. Cited. Id., 228. Right to be informed of nature and clause of criminal charge cited. Id. Cited. Id., 252; judgment
reversed, see 236 C. 388. Self-incrimination and right to counsel cited. Id. Due process and personal liberty guarantees
provided by this section and Art. I, Sec. 9 of Connecticut Constitution encompass the protection against double jeopardy.
Id., 276. Due process cited. Id. Due process violation; failure to instruct on essential elements cited. Id., 338. Due process
and suppression by presentation of evidence favorable to accused; right to fair trial cited. Id., 355. Right to confrontation
cited; right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 360. Cited. Id., 379. Due process cited; unconstitutionality of Sec.

-- 89 of 129 --

232 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
31-71b cited. Id. Unconstitutionally vague and void for vagueness cited. Id., 388. Cited. Id., 404. Right against self-in-
crimination cited. Id., 437. Cited. Id., 456; judgment reversed, see 236 C. 176. Due process rights and a fair trial cited;
claim of privilege against self-incrimination cited; right of confrontation cited. Id. Court declines to elevate an impermis-
sibly suggestive identification procedure of an inanimate object to one of constitutional magnitude. Id., 464. Due process
cited. Id. Right to counsel cited; right to be informed adequately of nature of charges cited. Id., 500. Dilution of state’s
burden of proof and deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 509. Right to speedy trial cited. Id., 574. Cited. Id., 589. Right to
due process of law cited; right to confrontation cited; prosecutorial misconduct and deprivation of fair trial cited; dilution
of state’s burden of proof cited. Id. Cited. Id., 619. Right to be informed of nature and cause of accusation cited. Id.
Rights to fair trial or due process cited. Id., 635. Denial of due process cited; right is effective assistance of counsel cited.
Id., 672. Cited. Id., 722. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id. Cited. Id., 733. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited; right
to due process, suppression of out of court identification, prosecutorial misconduct cited. Id. Cited. Id., 801. Rights to
fair cross section jury panel cited; due process cited. Id. Due process and jury instruction cited. 38 CA 29. Due process
and failure to preserve potentially exculpatory evidence cited; right to present a defense cited; prosecutorial misconduct
cited. Id., 56. Right to present a defense and right not to testify cited. Id., 85. Cited. Id., 100. Right of confrontation cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 125. Rights to fair trial, confrontation and due process cited. Id. Right to fair trial by impartial jury cited;
right to due process cited. Id., 247. Dilution of state’s burden of proof cited. Id., 282. Cited. Id., 371. Prosecutorial mis-
conduct, deprivation of fair trial, due process, right to present a defense and to confront adverse witness cited. Id. Rights
to due process cited; reduction of state’s burden of proof cited. Id., 434. “... Asherman balancing test must be used in
cases involving a claim of violation of due process because of the loss or destruction of physical evidence.” Id., 531.
Right to due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 581. Due process cited. Id. Right to fair trial cited. Id., 598. Cited. Id., 643.
Double jeopardy cited; due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 661. Double jeopardy provisions cited; due process cited; trial
by jury cited; right to fair trial cited; proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt cited. Id. Right of confrontation cited; due
process cited. Id., 731. Due process cited. Id., 762. Cited. Id., 777. Right to notice of charges cited; due process and duty
to disclose exculpatory evidence cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 801. Cited. Id., 815; Id., 868. Right to speedy
trial cited; due process cited. Id. Cited. 39 CA 45. Cited. Id., 63. Due process cited; right to present a defense cited; di-
lution of state’s burden of proof cited; burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt cited; right to be informed of
nature of charge cited. Id. Right to counsel of his choice cited. Id., 82; Id., 96; Id., 175. Cited. Id., 183. Due process cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 224. “Miranda” rights cited; right to obtain counsel cited; nature of accusations against defendant cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 267. Lack of nature of changes cited; due process and deprivation of fair trial cited. Id. Prosecutorial miscon-
duct, due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 333. Right to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 369. Due process and
prosecutorial misconduct cited; right to fair trial cited; ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 384. Due process rights
cited. Id., 407. Cited. Id., 455. Due process and prosecutorial misconduct cited. Id., 478. Due process and prosecutorial
misconduct cited; “Miranda” warning cited. Id., 579. Cited. Id., 617. Right to due process cited; loss or destruction of
evidence cited. Id. Cited. Id., 645. Due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 657. Unconstitutional enlargement cited; right to be
informed of nature of charges cited; fair trial and due process cited. Id. Cited. Id., 674. Rights to due process cited. Id.
Right of confrontation cited; due process clause of Connecticut Constitution cited. Id., 702. Right to assistance of coun-
sel cited. Id., 722. Cited. Id., 789. Deprivation of fair and impartial trial cited. Id. Right to present a defense cited. Id.,
800. Right to uncoerced jury cited. Id., 810. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 813. Ineffective assistance of
counsel and deprivation of due process cited. Id., 832. Due process rights cited. Id., 840. Cited. 40 CA 1. Unconstitution-
ally vague cited; constitutional right to compel appearance of witnesses for defense cited. Id. Rights of compulsory
process, due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 47. Cited. Id., 60; Id., 75. Impermissibly vague cited. Id. Rights to due
process cited; deprivation of right to confront witness and a fair trial cited. Id., 132. Cited. Id., 151. Due process right to
a fair trial cited; right to notice cited. Id. Cited. Id.; Id., 189. Rights to due process, to present a defense and to a fair trial
cited; right to impartial jury cited. Id. Cited. Id., 233. Due process clause of the Connecticut Constitution cited. Id. Depri-
vation of a fair trial and due process right to counsel of choice cited. Id., 374. Cited. Id., 387. Due process and a fair trial
cited; instructions constitutionally defective cited. Id. Cited. Id., 470. Right to confrontation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 483.
Right to speedy trial cited; right to fair trial and effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 515. Due process
cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 526. Effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 553. Due process and fairness of
trial cited. Id., 601, 603. Right to impartial jury and fair trial cited; denial of due process cited; prosecutorial misconduct
cited; diminished state’s burden of proof cited. Id., 624. Cited. Id., 643. Right to speedy trial and speedy sentencing cited;
due process rights cited. Id. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 757. Cited. Id., 762. Right to have jury
selected from a fair cross section of the community cited. Id. Cited. Id., 805. Right to due process cited; right to present
a defense and to a fair trial cited; right not to be placed in double jeopardy cited. Id. Cited. 41 CA 7. Rights to due process
and against self incrimination and “Miranda” warnings cited; right to contact attorney cited. Id. Right against self-in-
crimination; right to counsel; right to cross examination; right to due process cited. Id., 47. Cited. Id., 139. Due process
violation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 147. Due process rights cited. Id. Right to confrontation cited. Id., 204. Cited. Id., 255. Due
process rights cited; right to notice cited. Id. Right to due process, to a fair trial and to present a defense cited. Id., 317.
Due process right to establish a defense cited. Id., 361. Cited. Id., 391. Privilege against self-incrimination and “Mi-
randa” warnings cited; due process cited. Id. Right to counsel cited. Id., 454. Due process cited. Id., 476. Due process
and a fair trial cited. Id. 495. Cited. Id., 515. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Right to due process and a fair
trial cited. Id., 604. Right against self-incrimination and to remain silent cited; right to confront witnesses cited. Id., 695.
Cited. Id., 701. Impermissible cross-examination about post arrest silence cited; right to adequately instructed jury cited;
right to due process cited; “Miranda” rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 751. Right not to be put twice in jeopardy cited; double
jeopardy rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 772. Right against unreasonable seizures, inevitable discovery doctrine cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 809. Right to conflict-free representation, due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Right to not have uncharged
offenses presented to the jury. Id., 817. Constitutional right to present a defense cited; right to compulsory process cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 831. “Miranda” warnings and right against self-incrimination cited. Id. Unconstitutionally shifted burden
of proof from state cited. 42 CA 10. “The jury was never instructed that the presumption or inference was mandatory and
the burden of persuasion never shifted.” Id. Cited. Id., 17. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited; denial of fair trial

-- 90 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 233
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
and due process cited; right to conflict-free representation cited. Id. “Miranda” warnings and exercise of right to remain
silent cited; right to confrontation and restriction of cross-examination cited; due process cited. Id., 41. Denial of motion
to dismiss on speedy trial and due process grounds is not final for the purposes of appeal. Id., 144. Rights to a speedy
trial cited. Id. Denial of presumption of innocence and due process rights cited. Id. Right of confrontation cited. Id., 186;
judgment reversed, see 241 C. 823. Ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsels cited. Id., 304. Constitutionally
guaranteed due process right to establish a defense cited. Id., 348. Constitutional right to counsel cited; waiver of counsel
and right of self-representation cited. Id., 371. Cited. Id., 445. Prosecutorial misconduct and deprivation of right to a fair
trial cited; ineffective assistance of appellate counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 472. Deprivation of constitutional right to fair
trial by improper instruction cited. Id., 555. Unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant cited; claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel cited. Id., 640. Denial of fair trial and due process of law cited; obligation to produce exculpatory
evidence cited. Id., 669. Due process cited; due process right to address court cited; right to counsel cited. Id., 768. Right
to due process and fair trial cited; lowering of state’s burden of proof cited. Id., 810. Deprivation of due process cited;
waivers of right to counsel, to remain silent, to be present at trial, to jury trial, to confrontation and against self-incrimi-
nation cited. 43 CA 142. Cited. Id., 209. Right to assistance of counsel cited; right to remain silent cited; “Miranda”
rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 252. Confrontation and due process rights cited; right of cross-examination cited. Id. Cited.
Id., 339. Due process cited; state’s satisfaction of burden of proof cited. Id. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id.,
374. Due process cited. Id., 387. Rights to due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 458. Right to due process and a fair trial
cited. Id., 480. Cited. Id., 488. Right to a speedy trial cited; due process and opportunity afforded to present a defense
cited. Id., 488. Unconstitutionally vague cited. Id., 527. Right to confront witnesses and denial of effective assistance of
counsel cited. Id., 549. “Miranda” rights and denial of effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 552. Right against
self-incrimination and right to due process and to confront accusers cited. Id., 555. Cited. Id., 606. Procedural and sub-
stantive due process claims cited. Id. Right to due process cited; claim of prosecutorial misconduct cited; deprivation of
fair trial cited. Id., 619. Cited. Id., 667. Rights to confrontation and due process cited; fair trial cited. Id. Alleging prose-
cutorial misconduct cited; fair trial cited; right of confrontation cited. Id., 680. Cited. Id., 704. Right to present a defense
cited; due process clauses cited; right to assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct cited; right to fair trial cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 715. Right to confront witnesses cited; cross-examination cited; right to present witnesses in own defense
cited. Id. Rights to be informed of charges against him and to due process cited. Id., 785. Cited. 44 CA 6. Due process
rights cited; rights to counsel cited; rights to remain silent cited; reliability of identification cited; privilege against
self-incrimination cited. Id. Due process rights cited. Id., 70. Unconstitutionally vague and overbroad on its face cited;
due process cited. Id., 84. Cited. Id., 162. Right to counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 187. Fundamental right to a jury trial cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 198. Right of confrontation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 231. Due process cited. Id. Due process and a fair trial
cited. Id., 280. Due process rights cited; right against self-incrimination cited. Id., 307. Ineffective assistance of counsel
cited. Id., 387. Right to due process and confrontation cited. Id., 457. Cited. Id., 476. State due process rights cited. Id.
Cited. Id., 548. Due process rights cited. Id. Cited. Id., 561. Due process and a fair trial cited. Id. Cited. Id., 702. Due
process cited. Id. Rights to confrontation cited; due process rights to inadequately instructed jury cited. Id., 731. Cited.
Id., 746; Id., 790. Prosecutorial misconduct claim cited. Id., 818. Due process rights cited. 45 CA 32. Rights to confron-
tation cited. Id., 66. Right to confrontation cited; prosecutorial misconduct cited; right to due process, to present a de-
fense and a fair trial cited. Id., 116. Prosecutorial misconduct and deprivation of a fair trial cited. Id., 142. Violation of
due process cited. Id., 187. Cited. Id., 207. Right to counsel cited. Id. Claim of ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id.,
242. Right to remain silent and right to counsel cited. Id., 261. Right to due process and to present witnesses and privilege
against self-incrimination cited. Id., 282. Violated rights to fair trial, to present a defense and to due process of law cited.
Id., 297. Ineffective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 362. Right to fair trial and present a defense cited. Id., 369. Right to
confrontation and to be represented by counsel cited. Id., 390. Deprivation of fair trial cited. Id., 408. Cited. Id., 476. Due
process of law cited. Id. Level of due process violation cited. Id., 512. Right to confront and cross-examine witnesses and
to present a defense cited. Id., 584. Prosecutorial misconduct, denial of due process and a fair trial cited. Id., 591. Due
process and unnecessarily suggestive identification procedures cited; obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence cited.
Id., 658. Federal and state rights of confrontation and to present a defense cited. Id., 756. Right to due process and to be
present at trial cited; effective assistance of counsel cited. Id., 809. Right to be informed of charges cited. 46 CA 24.
Right of confrontation cited. Id., 118. Right to a fair trial cited. Id., 131. Poisoned fruit of unwarned statement and “Mi-
randa” warnings cited; due process and right to establish a defense cited. Id., 216. Right to a fair trial and to proper in-
struction cited. Id., 269. Cited. Id., 285. Due process rights to a fair trial, to present a defense and to confront witnesses
against him cited. Id. Cited. Id., 414. Right to be informed of nature and cause of the accusations and to a fair trial cited.
Id. Cited. Id., 486. Ineffective assistance of counsel and due process cited; unconstitutionally vague cited; self-represen-
tation cited. Id. Cited. Id., 545. Right to remain silent, “Miranda” warnings and due process cited; right to effective as-
sistance of counsel, confrontation and compulsory process cited. Id. Due process, a fair trial and prosecutorial miscon-
duct cited. Id., 578. Right to impartial jury and a fair trial cited. Id., 600. Constitutional right to due process and to
present a defense and a fair trial cited; assistance of counsel cited. Id., 640. Cited. Id., 661. Due process, facially and
unconstitutionally vague and a fair trial cited; void for vagueness cited. Id. Right to due process cited. Id., 684. Due
process right to proof of an element cited. Id., 691. Cited. Id., 721; Id., 741. Due process and right to impartial jury cited.
Id. Right to due process and a fair trial; right to confrontation cited. Id., 810. Denial of due process cited; right to fair trial
cited. 47 CA 1. Record does not disclose adequate prosecutorial misconduct for review of unpreserved claim and does
not meet the third prong of the State v. Golding test. Id., 134. Prosecutorial statements that directly linked defendant’s
decision to testify on his own behalf with defendant’s guilt impermissibly burdened defendant’s exercise of constitu-
tional right to testify. Id., 401. Standard for determining claim of ineffective assistance of counsel discussed. Id., 499.
Pretrial identification procedure did not violate due process rights. Id., 632. Prosecutor’s rebuttal closing argument did
not violate defendant’s right to confront witnesses and to testify on his own behalf. Id. Court improperly struck testimony
of defendant’s expert witness regarding behavioral changes caused by drug defendant allegedly used on day of the
crimes, but error was harmless. Id., 678. State constitution does not afford greater double jeopardy protection than fed-
eral constitution. 48 CA 71. A jury instruction re included offenses is a matter of common law and does not implicate

-- 91 of 129 --

234 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
constitutional rights. Id., 677. Claim that trial court violated defendant’s right of confrontation by unduly restricting his
right to engage in cross-examination denied. Id., 755. Factors for determining whether prosecutorial misconduct amounts
to a denial of due process. Id., 812. Accused has fundamental right to be acquitted unless proven guilty of each element
of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Court disagreed with defendant’s claim that state allowed to ask
improper questions on voir dire. 49 CA 41. Fairness of trial and not culpability of prosecutor is the standard for analyzing
defendant’s claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Id., 56. Defendant not deprived of right to fair trial by court’s questioning
of a witness since any prejudice was cured by instructions to jury. Id., 183. Due process requires that a hearing be held
whenever the trial court is required to make a finding concerning a disputed factual issue such as whether the statute of
limitations has been tolled. Id., 198. Evidentiary rulings and prosecutor’s comments did not deprive defendant of right to
a fair trial. Id., 252. The offense of risk of injury to a child and the offense of sexual assault in the fourth degree are not
the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. Id., 409. Re standard of proof in criminal trial, the state need only prove
that the cumulative impact of the facts proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant acted intentionally; instruction
re reasonable doubt proper. Id., 459. Jury instruction re consciousness of guilt was proper. Id. Trial court did not marshal
the evidence so as to unduly prejudice the defendant or deprive him of his right to due process. Id., 486. Fundamental
constitutional right that a defendant charged with the commission of crime of assault be permitted to establish a defense
includes proper jury instructions on the elements of self-defense so that jury may ascertain whether the state has met its
burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the assault was not justified. Id., 738. Effective cross-examination does
not include eliciting or presenting evidence that is immaterial or irrelevant. 50 CA 1. Exclusion of certain videotape
evidence of alleged bias against defendant on the part of police officer was within trial court’s discretion where a more
than ample opportunity had been provided for cross-examination on issues of hostility or bias and other evidence was
allowed to be introduced on that issue. Id., 51. Failure to give jury instruction regarding efficient intervening cause of
victim’s death held not violative of due process where defendant did not present evidence of such cause. Id., 159. On a
claim of prosecutorial misconduct, defendant failed to establish a sufficient pattern of misconduct pervading throughout
the trial that was so blatantly egregious that it infringed on his right to a fair trial. Id., 175. Trial court did not improperly
bolster credibility of witness where result of court’s statement to jury was to place certain testimony in proper context.
Id. Prosecutor’s remarks commenting on defendant’s presence in courtroom and alleged opportunity to tailor his testi-
mony held to be improper as infringement on right to be present during trial and expression of prosecutor’s opinion as to
credibility of defendant’s testimony held to be denial of due process. Id., 242. Jury instructions that reference victim’s
right to use reasonable force in defense of dwelling and defendant’s right to engage in self defense sufficient to mislead
jury. Id., 607. Due process of law guarantees criminal defendant fair trial before impartial judge and jury in neutral at-
mosphere. 51 CA 328. Standard for analyzing defendant’s due process claim alleging prosecutorial misconduct. Id., 345.
Failure to object at trial to display of knife for identification without connecting knife to defendant does not violate due
process. Id., 489. Mischaracterization of evidence in closing argument did not violate due process because not egregious
and damaging so as to deprive defendant of fair trial. Id. Failure of counsel to address jury to explain rulings of lesser
included offenses did not deny defendant counsel or a fair trial. Id., 505. Jury instructions required to include essential
elements of alleged crime. Id., 541. Two-part analysis for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence claims. Id., 563. When
defendant claims prosecutor’s improper remarks violate right to fair trial, burden is on defendant to show that remarks
were prejudicial in light of entire proceeding and appellate court must give great weight to trial court’s determination as
to fairness of the trial. Id., 589. No violations of constitutional rights to effective assistance of counsel and to fair trial
resulting from court threats to hold defense counsel in contempt for improper and gratuitous comments. Id., 604. Defen-
dants who are parties as individuals cannot assert the due process claims of their partnership. Id., 790. Evidence was
sufficient for the trial court to find probable cause, and thus did not clearly deprive defendant of a fair trial. Id., 798.
Although defendant has constitutionally guaranteed due process right to establish a defense, the defense sought must be
legally cognizable as a valid defense to the crime charged. Id. Trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying defen-
dant’s request, raised on the eve of trial, to dismiss counsel. 52 CA 408. Trial court’s refusal to disclose victim’s psychi-
atric records and the names of mental health care providers, and to permit voir dire of the providers, when the records
were not probative as to victim’s capacity as a witness, did not violate defendant’s right to confrontation. Id. Defendant
failed to demonstrate that a constitutional violation clearly existed and clearly deprived him of a fair trial. Id., 466. Police
request that defendant submit to a sobriety test was necessary to a legitimate police procedure and the resulting incrimi-
nating statements made by the defendant were admissible under Miranda. Id., 475. Defendant’s conviction of operating
motor vehicle while license under suspension reversed and case remanded for new trial where trial court’s charge im-
properly shifted burden of proof to defendant on issue of whether he operated motor vehicle within scope of work permit.
53 CA 23. Prohibition against double jeopardy was not implicated where there was only one trial and defendant was
convicted of, and sentenced on, only one offense. 54 CA 278. Defendant’s claim that he was denied a speedy trial cannot
succeed when the delay resulted first from defendant’s own failure to appear at trial, and second from necessary compe-
tency proceedings and related treatment. Id., 361. Trial court’s failure to appoint counsel to oppose competency proceed-
ings was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; procedural due process re competency hearings cited. Id. Where defen-
dant was present when charges against him and long-form substituted information were presented to the jury, and
defendant pleaded not guilty to “this case of sexual assault that I didn’t do”, defendant cannot successfully claim that he
was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him. Id. Improper comments by juror held to be juror
misconduct which deprived defendant of fair trial before impartial jury. 55 CA 60. Defendant could not meet third con-
dition of Golding test in his objection to the jury charge because it was not reasonably possible that the jury was misled.
Id., 412. Despite state’s error in failing to tell defendant that a witness was paid for his testimony, the testimony was
corroborated at trial and defendant’s claim cannot succeed because there is not a reasonable probability that trial out-
come would have been different if the information had been disclosed. Id., 426. State’s failure to tell defendant that a
witness was paid for his testimony did not therefore deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to confront the paid
witness. Id. Defendant was not deprived of effective counsel; actions of counsel either did not constitute deficient per-
formance, or where they may have been deficient, defendant failed to establish a reasonable probability that the outcome
of his trial would have otherwise been different. Id. Jury instruction re reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence

-- 92 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 235
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
did not amount to a constitutional violation. Id., 469. Change from live testimony to videotape testimony of child re her
sexual assault did not deprive defendant of the presumption of innocence. Id., 717. In defendant’s claim of denial of ef-
fective assistance of counsel, to withdraw his guilty plea, defendant must prove that counsel’s assistance was ineffective
and that it was this ineffectiveness that rendered the guilty plea involuntary. 57 CA 385. Due process claim not properly
preserved; defendant’s failure to file proper pretrial motions constituted waiver of his claim that charge was too vague as
to when alleged offense was committed. Id., 736. Evidence was sufficient for jury to find defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt. Id. Evidence was sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. 58 CA 125. Statements
were not subject to suppression under Miranda because there was no interrogation of defendant. Id., 136. Due process
not violated where probation was revoked despite failure to deliver notice re probation pursuant to Secs. 53a-30 and 54-
108. Id., 153. Due process violated when court initially allowed admission of hearsay evidence for a limited purpose but
later reversed itself and allowed statement to be used without limitation; due process requires that parties be given suffi-
cient time and notice to prepare themselves. Id., 176. Claim is not valid that Sec. 17a-112(c)(3)(A) is unconstitutionally
void for vagueness because it fails to put an incarcerated parent on notice re how to prevent termination of parental rights;
state interest in terminating parental rights sufficient to satisfy due process requirements. Id., 244. Defendant was not
denied right of confrontation or right to a fair trial where child witness was allowed to hold a stuffed animal while testi-
fying. Id., 501. Photographic array with photographs of other individuals bearing a description similar to but not exactly
the same as descriptions given by witnesses was not unnecessarily suggestive and did not violate defendant’s rights to
due process and fair trial. 59 CA 112. Defendant not deprived of rights to due process, fair trial and effective assistance
of counsel when court refused to instruct jury that state was not prosecuting one of three cases that jury had been told it
would hear and refused to allow defense counsel to make any reference in final argument to such third case. Id. Defen-
dant not deprived of right to fair trial by prosecutor’s questions during cross-examination and comments during closing
arguments and by jury instructions concerning state’s burden of proof on element of intent and the effect of defendant’s
intoxication in determining whether state proved the requisite intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., 207. Evidence was
sufficient to constitute probable cause to arrest defendant and therefore search of defendant and vehicle incident to that
arrest was permissible even though search preceded arrest. Id., 272. Jury instruction concerning thoroughness of the
police investigation did not deprive defendant of a fair trial by undermining the presumption of innocence and diluting
state’s burden of proof. Id., 282. Defendant’s right to fair trial and unanimous verdict not violated when court made it
clear that jury had to find each element of crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt and there was ample evidence to
support conviction under both alternate theories of liability. Id., 305. Jury instruction did not dilute the presumption of
innocence and reasonable doubt standard. Defendant’s right to confront accusers was not denied when trial court pre-
cluded him from asking police officer certain questions for which no foundation had been established. Id., 394. Reiter-
ated previous holdings that constancy of accusation does not violate right to confrontation. Id., 469. Defendant has no
right to present evidence that is not admissible according to the rules of evidence and it is trial court’s function to make
evidentiary determinations. 60 CA 398. Jury instructions, read as a whole, adequately informed jury of the standard of
proof. Id., 487. After plenary review of record as a whole, court concluded that habeas court correctly found that peti-
tioner, in claiming that trial counsel failed to adequately explain difference between consecutive and concurrent sentenc-
ing, failed to carry burden of establishing that counsel provided ineffective assistance under Strickland-Hill test. 61 CA
55. Standard of review re constitutional claim of ineffective assistance of counsel discussed. Id. Trial court charge on
presumption of innocence that “the law is made to protect society and persons whose guilt has not been proven beyond
a reasonable doubt, and not to protect persons proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” did not unconstitutionally de-
prive defendant of a fair trial. Id., 73. Defendant did not demonstrate that trial court charge that a reasonable doubt is “a
real doubt, an honest doubt” was constitutionally improper. Id. Defendant did not, under circumstances of case, demon-
strate that trial court’s denial of request for a continuance of violation of probation hearing until thirty days after trial
concerning underlying criminal charges violated due process rights under state constitution. Id., 99. Defendant failed to
furnish adequate analysis of due process claim re establishment of violation of probation by proof beyond a reasonable
doubt or, in the alternative, proof by clear and convincing evidence in a revocation of probation hearing since adequate
analysis requires more than abstract assertions. Id. Denial of defendant’s request for a jury charge re consideration of
photographs not produced into evidence was not, under circumstances of case, a constitutional violation that clearly
deprived defendant of a fair trial. Id., 164. Trial court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress photographic
identification where court determined that photographic display of five suspects was not unnecessarily suggestive and
witness’ identification of defendant was reliable. Id., 219. Where court found that defendant was hearing impaired and,
as an accommodation, provided him with a particular transcription system for use during trial, court’s failure to provide
defendant with a different, allegedly better system was within court’s discretion and did not deprive defendant of his
constitutional rights. Id., 275. Failure to instruct jury re elements of Sec. 53-202k was harmless error, since evidence
against defendant was overwhelming and uncontested, and not violative of due process. Id., 417. Trial court’s removal of
alternate juror who made unsupported allegations of racial bias against a juror deemed neither abuse of discretion nor
chilling effect on racial bias reports by jurors. 62 CA 148. Appellate court rejected defendant’s claim that trial court vi-
olated his rights under Art. I, Secs. 8, 19 and 20 of the Connecticut Constitution when it improperly allowed the state to
exercise a peremptory challenge against a prospective juror, who was a member of defendant’s racial group, without a
racially neutral explanation reasonably related to the issues in the case. Appellate court found that evidence supported
the prosecutor’s reasons for striking the prospective juror, and defendant failed to establish that the state gave a pretextual
reason for excusing the prospective juror. Id., 182. Jury instruction in which the phrases “reasonable doubt” and “the
benefit of the doubt” are included does not suggest that jury could only acquit in a close case if it could give defendant
“the benefit of the doubt” and therefore does not impinge on defendant’s right to due process. Id., 625. Defendant not
deprived of fair trial by court’s instruction on what constitutes reasonable doubt. 63 CA 245. Prosecutor’s comments with
respect to defendant’s personal use of drugs, which defendant argued fell into the category of asking for an explanation
that only the defendant can provide, did not encroach on defendant’s right to remain silent and did not deprive defendant
of right to a fair trial. Id., 263. Defendant not deprived of fair trial when testimony concerning his gang membership was
introduced during his trial for possession of drugs since probative value of the testimony outweighed any prejudicial

-- 93 of 129 --

236 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
effect. Id., 284. In order to establish violation of defendant’s right to conflict-free representation he must establish that
counsel actively represented conflicting interests and that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyer’s
performance. To prevail on ineffective assistance of counsel claim, petitioner must show that counsel’s performance was
deficient and that the deficient performance prejudiced the defense. Id., 297. Fairness of the trial and not the culpability
of the prosecutor is the standard for analyzing constitutional due process claims of criminal defendants alleging prose-
cutorial misconduct. Id., 319. Being shackled did not interfere with defendant’s right to self-representation since defen-
dant has not shown that shackles denied him actual control over the case he presented to the jury. Id., 386. Defendant’s
right to represent himself was not infringed when he was denied access to a law library and court declines to hold that
standby counsel was required to perform legal research for him. Id. Although court did not hold an evidentiary hearing
before ordering defendant to wear leg shackles, defendant’s right to a fair trial before an impartial jury was not infringed
since court detailed for the record its justification for ordering use of restraints. Id. Because trial court properly satisfied
its affirmative obligation to explore the alleged conflict of interest after being alerted to its possible existence and be-
cause defendant was not prejudiced by his counsel’s previous brief representation of the state’s witness, defendant was
not deprived of his right to conflict free representation. Id., 419. Court’s refusal to disclose complaining witness’ treat-
ment records and exclusion of defense counsel from in camera hearing on such records held not violative of defendant’s
right to confrontation and right to present a defense. 64 CA 312. Court’s omission of word “cocaine” from jury instruc-
tions did not deprive defendant of his right to present a defense where testimony concerning his cocaine use bore no
relevance to his capacity to form the specific intent necessary to commit the crimes. 67 CA 194. Prosecutor’s comments
did not deprive defendant of fair trial. Id., 249. Court did not deny defendant’s due process rights when it denied defen-
dant’s motion to dismiss criminal charges or to exclude certain police testimony that was based on the police’s destruc-
tion of recorded police radio broadcasts made on the evening of his arrest. Id., 299. Defendant could not prevail on her
unpreserved claim that her conviction of two counts of assault in the first degree pursuant to Subdivs. (1) and (2) of Sec.
53a-59(a) constitutes double jeopardy because each Subdiv. contains an element that the other does not. Only Subdiv. (1)
requires that a person intend to cause serious physical injury by means of a deadly weapon or dangerous instrument and
only Subdiv. (2) requires that a person intend to disfigure another permanently; legislature’s use of different language
indicated its intention to differentiate between the types of harm a person can cause. Id., 803. Defendant in probation
revocation hearing must take affirmative action to invoke the due process right to testify on his behalf. In a probation
revocation hearing, court is not required to canvass the parties about whether they want to resent closing arguments. 68
CA 40. State did not breach duty to specify specific time of alleged events because it did not have such information. Id.,
313. Right to present a defense not violated when testimony of defendant’s prior attorney concerning the atmosphere
surrounding an interview of her by the police was excluded as irrelevant. Id., 351. Court did not improperly exclude
evidence of semen from third party on victim’s clothing. Id., 470. No abuse of discretion in finding defendant competent
to stand trial. Id. Trial court committed plain error and deprived defendant of right to a fair trial when it presided over
defendant’s trial and sentencing after having participated actively in pretrial plea negotiations. Id., 884. Statements made
by prosecutor in closing argument violated Art. I, Sec. 8 of Connecticut Constitution. 69 CA 299. Defendant’s plea found
to be entered knowingly and voluntarily where court did not specifically state that defendant would not be able to with-
draw her plea if she did not appear but the record indicated that the omission did not create a misunderstanding as to the
terms of the plea agreement. Id., 691. Defendant’s oral and written statements to police while he was in the hospital for
gunshot wounds found to be voluntary where defendant initiated the contact and he was coherent and lucid despite being
medicated. Id., 717. Defendant not deprived of constitutional right to confront and cross-examine witnesses when court
allowed minor victim to provide videotaped testimony where victim expressed feelings of intimidation and fear of de-
fendant, and such feelings were compounded by victim’s developmental delays and precarious emotional state. 70 CA
171. Court did not deprive defendant of constitutional right to cross-examine victim by denying his motion to recall
victim as a witness where record revealed that defendant was afforded an opportunity to cross-examine victim fully and
fairly concerning her credibility and had an opportunity to explore victim’s credibility through the examination of other
witnesses. Id. Defendant could not prevail on claim that court deprived him of his right to present a defense when it re-
fused to admit into evidence a laboratory report indicating that certain evidence seized from his apartment by police had
tested negative for the presence of cocaine because report was not relevant to whether defendant had sold cocaine to two
police informants prior to the search and the events described at trial. Id., 255. Defendant’s rights under the confrontation
clause were not violated by court’s exclusion of evidence of witnesses’ prior convictions and specific acts of misconduct
on grounds that such prior convictions and acts of misconduct were “much too remote in time” to be relevant. Id. Defen-
dant’s objections to jury instructions regarding essential elements of conspiracy discussed and determined not to have
violated defendant’s due process rights under state constitution. Id., 393. Standard for reviewing denial of request for
alternate counsel discussed. Id., 515. Most of the challenged comments made by prosecutor were appropriate and based
on evidence presented at trial and any improper comments, taken as a whole, were not sufficiently pervasive to have
established a pattern of misconduct or so blatantly egregious that they infringed on defendant’s right to a fair trial, cumu-
lative effect of the challenged comments did not clearly deprive defendant of a fair trial. Id., 594. There is no reasonable
possibility, given these circumstances, that in rendering its verdict the jury was mislead by court’s reading of the entire
statute. 71 CA 110. A prosecutor’s remark about not allowing defendant “to escape justice” because of a reluctant wit-
ness was severe. Id., 121. Cumulative effect of the misconduct at issue was not so egregious as to constitute an infringe-
ment of defendant’s right to a fair trial. Id. Reiterated previous holdings that right to cross-examination not denied when
counsel precluded from quoting verbatim from defendant’s medical records during cross-examination of victim. Id., 190.
Plaintiff’s right to a fair civil trial was not violated by defense counsel’s improper remarks because the remarks, although
improper, were not grave enough to skew the result and require a new trial. Id., 537. Although prosecutor made improper
comments in his rebuttal argument, those comments alone were not such as to affect the entire proceeding and defendant
was not denied his right to a fair trial. 72 CA 380. In the context of the entire trial, certain instances of improper ques-
tioning by state did not cause substantial prejudice or undermine the fairness of the trial. Id., 545. On claim that prose-
cutor in closing argument improperly stated the law, it was held that jury was presumed to have followed court’s instruc-
tions that the court alone is responsible for stating the law and that the role of closing argument is to interpret the

-- 94 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 237
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
evidence. Id. Considered in the entirety of the jury instructions read as a whole and judged by the total effect rather than
by the individual component parts, certain inapplicable or inaccurate jury instructions were held not to have misled the
jury. Id. This article does not create a right for defendant to testify on his own behalf. Id. Reiterated previous holdings
that even if there was no probable cause for arrest, police officer could detain individual based on reasonable suspicion
and totality of evidence, even if defendant wore different clothing than suspect. 74 CA 248. Petitioner failed to establish
that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance and failed to rebut strong presumption that counsel’s conduct fell within
the wide range of reasonable professional assistance; court found that petitioner and his counsel conferred on multiple
occasions following petitioner’s arrest and during pretrial proceedings in court. Id., 489. State’s attorney’s remarks dur-
ing rebuttal argument that defendant may have been the person who shot murder victim due to a process of elimination
based on multiple inferences were based on facts properly in evidence and inferences jury could reasonably draw from
the facts and argument that defendant used a revolver to shoot victim was not so blatantly egregious that it infringed on
defendant’s right to fair trial. Id., 511. Trial court’s determination that defendant waived his Miranda rights voluntarily,
knowingly and intelligently was supported by substantial evidence, i.e. defendant’s conduct in initially agreeing to an
interview, placing his initials on first five lines of waiver form but refusing to sign a statement, actively participating in
an interview and subsequently ending that interview when he realized he could not negotiate his release in exchange for
information demonstrate a valid waiver and exercise of his Miranda rights. Id., 580. Defendant was not deprived of right
to fair trial for violation of Sec. 53a-111 because evidence was sufficient to establish that she possessed requisite intent.
Although prosecutor improperly asked defendant to comment on other witnesses’ veracity, the questioning occurred just
once and was not prejudicial; prosecutor’s closing statements, even if found improper, were isolated and not prejudicial.
75 CA 163. Cumulative effect of improperly admitted constancy of the evidence testimony did not violate defendant’s
right to fair trial. Id., 201. Conviction of both possession of at least one-half gram of crack cocaine with intent to sell
under Sec. 21a-278 and possession of powder cocaine with intent to sell under Sec. 21a-277 does not constitute double
jeopardy. Id., 223. Court was entitled to find that defendant was given a “Miranda” warning against self-incrimination
because defendant did not rebut officer’s testimony that the warning was given; defendant’s claim that inculpatory re-
mark was made after request for an attorney was not supported by factual findings at trial and thus defendant’s Miranda
rights were not violated. Id., 304. Given a record replete with references to defendant’s post-Miranda silence and his
request for counsel, court cannot conclude that jury would have returned guilty verdict without the impermissible ques-
tions or comments on defendant’s silence and request for counsel and therefore cannot conclude that state met its burden
of proving guilt. Id. Taken as a whole, prosecutor’s improper remarks to jury did not undermine defendant’s defense or
make a difference in outcome and did not substantially prejudice defendant’s right to fair trial. Id., 408. Prosecutor’s
improper cross-examination was cured by court’s jury instructions and admonishments and had no bearing on the critical
issue of the defendant’s intent and did not have an adverse effect on defendant’s defense. Id. In action regarding allegedly
improper sentence, defendant’s claims that prosecutor misrepresented certain information and that court improperly re-
lied on inaccurate information were unavailing where the information was irrelevant and immaterial to the sentence. Id.,
423. Upon review of entire record, it was held that court’s abuse of discretion in failing to disclose additional, cumulative
material for defendant’s use in cross-examination was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., 447. Where statute
concerning termination of parental rights allowed the court to consider events which took place after filing of petition for
termination, it was held that court had opportunity to do so and that the statute protected the due process rights of the
respondent by requiring clear and convincing evidence in the adjudicatory phase. Id., 485. Where defendant’s request for
jury instruction was an inaccurate statement of applicable law and because jury instructions, taken as a whole were
correct in the law, it was held that court properly refused to give excluded portion of defendant’s requested charge. Id.,
578. With regard to potential plea agreement, defendant cannot make an intelligent and knowing decision with regard to
a probation sentence without knowledge of special conditions attached thereto. Id., 615. In statutory rape case, improper
admission of testimony of a number of “constancy of accusation” witnesses was held to be part of mosaic of improperly
admitted evidence that, in the aggregate, served to deny defendant a fair trial. Id., 671. Where defense counsel subse-
quently waived client’s right to a jury instruction that he originally sought, court was found to have properly omitted the
instruction. Id., 721. Although court reiterated statutory definition of intent, one aspect of which was overbroad, through-
out jury instructions, it was held not to have misled jury where other numerous, specific and unambiguous instructions
accurately directed jury to a proper consideration of the evidence. Id. When jury’s vote tally is disclosed to court volun-
tarily and without solicitation, the fact that court knew of the split before giving a Chip Smith charge does not constitute
error. 76 CA 91. State’s filing of substitute information alleging burglary in the second degree did not violate defendant’s
rights under sixth amendment to U.S. Constitution and this section to adequate notice of charges against him because
state provided sufficient descriptive facts in the initial information alleging burglary in the first degree such that it was
not possible to commit the greater offense without also committing the lesser offense; thus, the information was held to
have placed defendant on notice of the lesser offense of burglary in the second degree. Id., 779. Section does not require
state to choose a particular moment as the time of an offense when the best information available to state is imprecise.
77 CA 405. Court did not have responsibility, sua sponte, to investigate further whether remaining jurors were aware of
excused juror’s prior knowledge of witness. Id. Court’s misstatement in its charge did not mislead jury since charge
considered as a whole made abundantly clear that state has burden of disproving the defense of self-defense beyond a
reasonable doubt. 78 CA 513. Court properly denied defendant’s motion to suppress statements he made while being
transported in police car because, regardless of whether defendant’s right to counsel had attached, defendant failed to
invoke that right. Id., 610. Because defendant was not afforded a timely probable cause hearing after state filed a part B
information charging assault of victim sixty years of age or older, which subjected defendant to a possible life sentence,
court dismissed that part of the information that related to such charge. 79 CA 535. Discussion of defendant’s unsuccess-
ful claim that, as there was insufficient evidence in the record to support his conviction of robbery in the first degree,
court improperly charged jury in violation of his right to due process. 81 CA 367. Since a combination to commit several
crimes is a single offense, defendant’s right to be free of double jeopardy was violated by his separate sentences for
conviction of three conspiracy counts. Id., 738. Since prosecutor did not engage in misconduct by referring to evidence
that he properly elicited during adjudicative phase of probation hearing, defendant was not deprived of his due process

-- 95 of 129 --

238 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
right to fair trial. 82 CA 832. Arrest, whether or not accompanied by a warrant, does not mark the start of adversarial
judicial proceedings and therefore defendant’s right to counsel did not attach at time of his arrest by warrant. 83 CA 28.
Statute is not void for vagueness and due process is not violated because crime of failure to pay wages does not require
a mens rea of at least criminal negligence. Id., 67. Court upheld prior rulings that convictions under both Sec. 29-35(a)
and Sec. 53a-217(a)(1) do not constitute double jeopardy. Id., 377. Defendant’s right not to testify was violated by court’s
postcharge, supplemental instruction that materially and substantially misstated the nature of defendant’s privilege not
to testify. Id., 811. Jury instruction that applied language of Sec. 53a-3(11) re general intent to counts of information
requiring finding of specific intent deprived defendant of due process right to fair trial by unconstitutionally reducing
state’s burden of proof as to those counts. 84 CA 105. Where defendant claimed that jury instruction permitted jury to
convict on the basis of an uncharged theory, court held that, since the charging information was adequate to enable de-
fendant to prepare a defense, to avoid surprise and to raise the disposition as a bar to further prosecution, jury instruction
did not prejudice the defense. Id., 263. Where defendant claimed that charging information was defective, court held that,
since the information clearly apprised defendant of specific statute that he had violated and of nature of the violation, the
information was sufficient to put defendant on notice of the charge against him. Id. Appellate court disagreed with de-
fendant’s view that his long history of mental illness, his conduct during the plea canvass and his counsel’s initial repre-
sentation to court that defendant was incompetent to enter a plea established a reasonable doubt about his competence to
plead guilty. Accordingly, trial court did not violate defendant’s due process rights to fair trial by accepting his Alford
plea without ordering, on its own motion, another evidentiary hearing concerning defendant’s competence. Id., 436.
Plaintiff who attempted to limit court’s review under Sec. 12-117a to only one portion of an assessment was not deprived
due process when entire assessment was reviewed because Connecticut law has consistently held that trial court exer-
cises de novo review under Sec. 12-117a. Id., 473. Defendant’s right to due process and to confrontation not violated by
loss of second page of statement and purported loss of photograph. 85 CA 329. Trial court’s imposition of enhanced
sentence reflecting defendant’s failure to fulfill a condition of plea agreement deprived defendant of liberty interest
without due process of law since fulfillment of that condition was not within defendant’s control. Id., 473. Use of clearly
erroneous standard of review on appeal from a termination of parental rights proceeding does not deny respondent ade-
quate procedural safeguards. Id., 528. Failure of counsel to request a continuance to have defendant evaluated and to
offer testimony of a psychiatrist deprived defendant of opportunity to establish diminished capacity defense and consti-
tuted ineffective assistance of counsel. Id., 544. Where medical hearing panel in hearing re revocation of physician’s li-
cense did not include a physician, due process rights not violated. Id., 854. Interfering with officer is a lesser offense
included in the greater offense of assault of public safety personnel and thus conviction of both offenses for the same act
constituted a double jeopardy violation. 86 CA 607. Prosecutor’s statement that sexual assault cases are often decided on
credibility of victim or defendant was not an improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify. Id., 641. Court did not
abuse its discretion and did not violate defendant’s rights to due process and a fair trial when it denied jury’s request to
review certain trial testimony because to do so would require playing back almost the entire trial testimony. Id., 751. Trial
court abused its discretion in excluding medical records relevant to defendant’s theory of self-defense, thus violating
defendant’s right to establish a defense under U.S. and Connecticut Constitutions. Accordingly, judgment was reversed
and the case remanded for new trial. 88 CA 495. No right to counsel at summary contempt proceedings because, al-
though criminal in nature, such proceedings concern offenses against the court as an organ of public justice and not vio-
lations of criminal law. Id., 599. Petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel due to trial counsel’s decision not
to exercise peremptory challenges to excuse two potentially biased jurors failed because petitioner did not satisfy the
deficient performance prong enunciated in Strickland v. Washington; petitioner’s counsel conducted an extensive voir
dire examination of jurors on the possibly tainted panel and declined to exercise a peremptory challenge of either of ju-
rors chosen from such panel because he did not want to exhaust petitioner’s limited peremptory challenges and was
convinced that both jurors would be fair and impartial and court concluded that such decision by trial counsel was a
reasonable tactical one. 89 CA 371. Defendant could not prevail on claim that trial court violated his constitutional right
to present a defense and to notice of the charges against him by instructing jury on accessorial liability when he had not
been charged as an accessory in the information and where state’s evidence did not show that he had acted as an acces-
sory; defendant had sufficient notice that he risked conviction as an accessory under the circumstances of this case where
state’s evidence as to commission of the crime raised the possibility of accessorial or principal liability for each shooter’s
participation, defendant did not submit a request for a bill of particulars and prosecutor specifically asserted that state
was proceeding on the principle of accessorial liability before the defense began its case. Id., 440. Evidence of drug
possession, without any evidence of use, may not be introduced in support of claim that a witness has a compromised
sense of perception, and, if cross examination is allowed re drug-related activities, does not constitute violation of defen-
dant’s right to confrontation. Id., 635. Defendant did not prove ineffective assistance of counsel where no prejudicial
effect from such ineffective assistance is shown due to defendant’s failure to produce any evidence that witnesses were
available to testify or that such testimony would have had an impact on trial’s outcome. Id., 850. Legislature’s choice of
“clear and convincing evidence” standard of proof under Sec. 17a-112(j) does not violate due process provisions of state
constitution; state constitution does not require court or legislature to equate terminations of parental rights with criminal
convictions. 90 CA 565. Trial court did not improperly exclude proffered evidence re defendant’s claim of intoxication
at time or murder. 91 CA 169. Habeas court properly found petitioner was not denied effective assistance of counsel. 92
CA 534. State constitution does not require that photographic identification be conducted in a double-blind, sequential
manner and thus defendant failed to establish that a state constitutional due process violation deprived him of fair trial.
Id., 818. State disclosure of certain police reports and additional witness list at a conference that occurred the morning
that defendant’s trial commenced, but prior to the start of evidence, found not to be a violation of defendant’s due process
rights where defendant’s counsel was provided an additional one to two hours to review the documents and then made
no use of the documents at trial and court. Id., 844. Court’s failure to give defendant’s requested jury instruction that use
of a deadly weapon, by itself, does not prove an intent to cause victim’s death and commit murder did not violate due
process by shifting state’s burden of proof on the essential element of intent. Court’s instruction that defined reasonable
doubt as real doubt, honest doubt and something more than a guess or surmise did not impermissibly dilute

-- 96 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 239
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
the fundamental protection that requires state to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 95 CA 263. Prosecutor’s use of
peremptory challenges to strike prospective jurors did not improperly discriminate against members of minority groups
and deprive defendant of fair trial because the nondiscriminatory reasons given by the state for each challenge were le-
gitimate and not pretextual. Prosecutor’s comments on credibility of witness and defendant that reflected reasonable
inferences from the evidence adduced at trial did not constitute prosecutorial misconduct and deprive defendant of fair
trial. Id., 400. Trial court properly granted motion to suppress evidence that was fruit of the poisonous tree; police officer
who conducted investigatory stop did not have a reasonable and articulable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the
stop–defendant had not been operating his vehicle in an erratic or illegal manner, police officer cited no facts to indicate
that defendant was operating his vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or that he was otherwise en-
gaged in, or about to engage in, criminal behavior, and such officer had a suspicion that the defendant wanted to avoid
her but lacked a specific and articulable basis necessary to conclude reasonably that an investigatory stop was justified.
Id., 616. Reaffirmed previous holdings that for defendant to prevail in claim that he was not informed of the nature and
cause of charges with sufficient precision to prepare defense, there must be a showing that the information was insuffi-
cient and prejudiced the defense and that substantial injustice resulted from lack of specificity, where state amended the
information after the original charges. 96 CA 42. Trial and appellate counsel did not violate defendant’s constitutional
right to effective assistance of counsel by failing to instruct jury on definition of attempt to commit robbery, an element
of felony murder, because jury could have found the state proved the element of attempt by using its ordinary definition.
98 CA 389. Murder is specific intent crime and although court’s instruction improperly referred to general intent to en-
gage in proscribed conduct, the erroneous instruction was not harmful beyond a reasonable doubt and did not deprive
defendant of a fair trial because court also properly instructed jury that it had to find defendant intended to cause victim’s
death. 99 CA 230. Conviction of sexual assault in the second degree as a lesser offense included within count of sexual
assault in the first degree, without age of victim being alleged in that count of the charging documents, deprived defen-
dant of opportunity to mount defense to the very crime for which he was ultimately convicted and violated his right to a
fair trial. Id., 251. Although trial court erred when it defined “likely” as “possibly” in the term “likely to impair the health
or morals of a minor child”, it was not reasonably possible that jury was misled and therefore defendant was not clearly
deprived of a fair trial. Id. Defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived right to a jury trial where evidence
established that defendant, who was found competent to stand trial, did not raise any concerns about his competency
until after he was found guilty of all charges, had some familiarity with court system, having a lengthy criminal history
that included robberies, received his general equivalency diploma during a period of incarceration, was represented by
counsel at all times, conferred with counsel before and during the course of court’s canvass re his waiver of a jury trial
and testified at his trial in a coherent and lucid manner. 100 CA 313. Review of transcripts and records showed defen-
dant’s waiver of counsel was knowing and voluntary and defendant’s guilty pleas did not have to be precluded from ev-
idence at his violation of probation hearing. 102 CA 154. Defendant could not prevail on claims that court’s failure to
properly instruct jury deprived him of due process and a fair trial where court’s instruction to jury re presumption of in-
nocence eliminated any reasonable likelihood of juror misunderstanding, the charge re reasonable doubt fairly presented
the case to jury and court’s instruction to jury re self-defense was clear and comprehensive. Id., 556. Defense counsel did
not provide ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to pursue additional medical and psychiatric evaluations that were
not likely to produce evidence of petitioner being brain damaged. 103 CA 662. Although trial court improperly imposed
an additional superfluous element with respect to the charges of which defendant was acquitted, the judgment of convic-
tion rendered by the court on the charge of attempt to commit murder was not legally or factually inconsistent with the
judgment of acquittal on those other charges and did not deprive defendant of due process. 104 CA 599. Failure of trial
court to admit prior inconsistent statement for substantive use was an evidentiary matter and did not violate right of de-
fendant to present a defense. Id., 710. Defendant was not deprived of right to jury trial and proof beyond a reasonable
doubt when court in its sentencing remarks referred to uncharged robberies involving defendant because court properly
relied on evidence presented at trial in imposing sentence. 107 CA 441. Habeas petitioner did not sustain burden of es-
tablishing that because of failure of his appellate counsel to raise a sufficiency of evidence claim there is reasonable
probability that he remains burdened by an unreliable determination of his guilt. Id., 539. Defendant cannot show unfair
surprise in burglary case re evidence of stolen cash not specifically referenced in the information because crime was of
the nature charged in the information and defendant did not object. 111 CA 543. State may fulfill constitutional duty to
inform accused of nature and cause of accusation by providing the statutory name of the crime with which the accused
is charged. Id., 752. Sec. 14-149(a), when applied to prohibit knowingly possessing a vehicle with one or more altered
vehicle identification numbers, is not unconstitutionally vague. 113 CA 541. Defendant was not deprived of right to
impartial jury when presumptively prejudicial extrinsic evidence was submitted to jury because error was harmless due
to nature and purpose of evidence and jury instruction. Id. Due process rights not violated where there was no evidence
of bad faith or negligence on the part of the state for not disclosing and maintaining records of an investigation that had
taken place fourteen years earlier and had exonerated prosecution witness; no due process violation where state failed to
make accurate information available to defendant about pending federal actions against prosecution witness, where state
was not a party to the federal actions, the actions were not in prosecutor’s possession and they were matters of public
record to which the state and defendant had equal access. 115 CA 124. Defendant not denied due process when court
failed to state explicit findings of fact regarding the rationale underlying its decision to revoke probation since that failure
did not, in and of itself, signify the absence of the dispositional phase of the probation revocation proceeding and the
record supported the reasonableness of the court’s conclusion to revoke probation. 116 CA 76. Although no exact length
of time has been established as sufficient to presume prejudice for purposes of determining a violation of a defendant’s
right to a speedy trial, a delay of approximately seventeen months is sufficient to warrant an investigation by the court
into the factors regarding a speedy trial violation examination. 118 CA 389. Where best information available to state is
imprecise, neither sixth amendment to U.S. Constitution nor this section requires state to choose particular moment as
time of offense charged. Id., 589. Defendant’s exclusion from an in-chambers hearing concerning juror impartiality did
not deprive defendant of the right to presumption of innocence. 119 CA 660. Trial court erred in excluding defendant
from an in-chambers hearing concerning possible juror partiality thereby depriving defendant of the right to be present

-- 97 of 129 --

240 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
during a critical stage of the proceedings; however, the court’s error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Court
did not violate procedural due process rights of incarcerated respondent in termination of parental rights proceeding
when it denied him the opportunity to participate using videoconferencing technology. 120 CA 465. Persistent dangerous
felony offender statute, Sec. 53a-40(h), is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to defendant because a person of ordi-
nary intelligence would comprehend that defendant’s acts were prohibited and that the public interest would be best
served by defendant’s extended incarceration and lifetime supervision, and is not unconstitutionally vague on its face
because statute may be applied constitutionally to the facts of the case. 121 CA 672. Defendant was prejudiced by coun-
sel’s deficient performance re entry of guilty plea because counsel failed to inform defendant that plea could be used at
trial and such fact was material to defendant’s entering of plea. 123 CA 121. In light of circumstances, defendant’s due
process rights were not violated by total consumption of DNA evidence during state’s DNA testing. 128 CA 296. Instruc-
tion to jury that it must unanimously find defendant not guilty of the greater offense before deliberating on a lesser in-
cluded offense did not necessarily lead the jury to believe that a compromise verdict was permissible; court’s refusal to
allow defendant to testify about his victim’s alleged prior violent acts against a third party did not violate defendant’s
right to present a defense or to due process of law. 131 CA 1. Return of evidentiary merchandise to stores before trial did
not deprive defendant of his right to a fair trial due to totality of circumstances and defendant’s ample opportunity to
review evidence and make motions. Id., 510. Convictions for manslaughter in the first degree and carrying a dangerous
weapon do not violate double jeopardy because manslaughter in the first degree does not require use of or carrying a
dangerous weapon and carrying a dangerous weapon does not require the intent element that first degree manslaughter
mandates. Id., 528. Requirement to obtain opinion letter from similar health care provider under Sec. 52-190a in medical
malpractice case does not violate due process because requirement is reasonably related to legitimate state interest in
preventing frivolous or meritless medical malpractice claims. 132 CA 68. Where defendant indicated emphatically that
he wanted his lawyer to continue to represent him, and his lawyer made affirmative representations to the court, defen-
dant’s constitutional right to counsel was satisfied and the court did not know, or have reason to know, that a conflict of
interest existed and had no duty to inquire further. Id., 414. The failure to retroactively apply legislative amendment to
property value limit re larceny in Sec. 53a-123 was not a constitutional violation because P.A. 09-138 does not apply
retroactively to crimes committed before the act was enacted. 136 CA 427. When considered against a backdrop of ex-
traordinarily overbearing manner of the identification procedure, the pretrial identification was not reliable and the
subsequent in-court identification was not sufficiently removed from the taint of the earlier out-of-court identification to
be independently reliable and should have been suppressed. Id., 568; judgment reversed, see 314 C. 131. No legal basis
exists for argument that Connecticut Constitution confers any broader protection than U.S. Constitution for defendant to
confront witnesses. 140 CA 455. Sec. 31-296 procedural safeguards, postdeprivation remedies and public interest in
providing speedy, effective, inexpensive method for determining workers’ compensation claims are sufficient to satisfy
due process requirements. 144 CA 413. It is not necessary for adequate assistance of counsel for defense counsel to know
the exact testimony of witnesses as a precondition to making a reasonable professional decision about their involvement.
145 CA 16. Prohibition against being compelled to give evidence against himself only applies to testimonial evidence;
handwriting exemplar that defendant was ordered to provide was nontestimonial and did not violate prohibition. 152 CA
753; judgment reversed on alternate grounds, see 320 C. 589. Neither the federal, nor the state constitution’s text ex-
pressly deal with an absolute right to demand substitution of one court appointed counsel for another. 163 CA 155. Ha-
beas court erred in denying petitioner’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding counsel’s failure to object to
inadmissible hearsay. 166 CA 1; judgment reversed, see 329 C. 584. Parole eligibility hearing under Sec. 54-125a(f) is
a constitutionally adequate remedy for sentences that were imposed in violation of Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455;
resentencing not required. 167 CA 744. Defendant’s contention that the court’s failure to grant his motion for a bill of
particulars caused him to lack constitutionally sufficient notice fails as the prosecutor gave defendant sufficient notice by
means of oral statement on the record at pretrial hearing. 172 CA 556. Section does not provide greater protection than
the federal constitution with respect to ambiguous or equivocal references to counsel during a custodial interrogation.
174 CA 401; judgment reversed, see 331 C. 318. Mandatory minimum sentence of twenty-five years of incarceration
imposed on juvenile homicide offender not violative of constitutional requirements because subsequent enactment of
Sec. 54-125a(f) rendered offender eligible for parole. 177 CA 242. Petitioner’s due process right not violated for lack of
competence when entering guilty plea even though he was receiving medication because he denied having taken any
drugs, alcohol or medication that day and his responses to the trial court’s questions during his canvass show that he fully
understood the circumstances. 182 CA 188. Defendant’s right to due process was not infringed when court found that he
had violated the Garvin agreement without first conducting a hearing in accordance with 278 C. 1. Id., 833. Although
state Supreme Court had previously adopted the burden shifting framework to allocate the burden of proof concerning
the admissibility of an identification that was the product of an unnecessarily suggestive procedure and the trial court did
not use that framework, the error was harmless because it was not reasonably possible the court would have reached a
different conclusion as to the admissibility of the eyewitness identification under that framework. 191 CA 315. Trial
court improperly denied the defendant’s motion to correct an illegal sentence because his right to be free from double
jeopardy was violated as (1) the offenses of manslaughter in the first degree under Sec. 53a-55(a)(1) and risk of injury to
a child under Sec. 53-21 arose from the same actions and constituted the same offense, (2) the offense of risk of injury
to a child, as charged, is a lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree, and (3) there is no authority that
would support the conclusion that the legislature intended to specifically authorize multiple punishments under the
statutes in question. 197 CA 302; judgment reversed, see 340 C. 425.
Cited. 5 CS 506; 22 CS 7, 324. Sec. 53-25 declared void. The all inclusive prohibition has no reasonable relationship
to the objects to be accomplished. 23 CS 121. Before enactment of Secs. 54-1b, 54-1c and 54-43 of the 1963 session
of the General Assembly, a court did not have duty to advise defendant accused of a misdemeanor of his right to obtain
counsel before plea was entered. Id., 176. Due process does not require that the state advise the accused of the possible
legal effect of pleading guilty to a noncapital charge nor of the later consequences of such plea and conviction. Id. In
cases involving misdemeanors court as a matter of law is under no duty to advise an accused of his right to counsel. 24
CS 15, 96. Cited. Id., 187. Constitutional right of accused to demand nature and cause of accusation is satisfied if bill

-- 98 of 129 --

Art. XXIX AMENDMENTS TO THE 241
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
of particulars he obtains, taken together with the information, states sufficient facts to enable him to prepare his defense
or protect his rights on appeal. Id., 247. Accused who is able to pay for legal assistance and asks for it has constitutional
right to secure assistance of his lawyer immediately after being charged. Id., 266. Provision guaranteeing accused a
speedy trial held inapplicable to delay in commencement of prosecution. Id., 308. Where state’s case rested entirely
on defendant’s testimony, held it was error not to inform defendant of his privilege against self-incrimination. Id., 353.
Cited. 25 CS 387. Grand juries are not prohibited from receiving hearsay evidence. That such evidence may have been
considered by the grand jury would not entitle one who had been indicted to have the indictment quashed. Id., 388. Coun-
sel for the accused may not accompany him before the grand jury. Id. Constitutional right of an accused to counsel does
not include representation by counsel before a grand jury. 26 CS 215. Where nolle prosequi is unconditionally entered
there is no case pending before court and second bench warrant and information fifteen months later charging defendant
with same crimes not denial of right to speedy trial. 27 CS 209. Appointment of state’s attorneys by superior court not
violative of due process rights of defendant on his theory that prosecutor and judge are in the same department of govern-
ment. 28 CS 252. Cited. Id., 257. Absence of counsel at a bench warrant proceeding not denial of due process. Accused

Amendment XXIX Ratified amendment and publisher annotations.

person has recourse to relief against excessive bail immediately on arrest. Id., 315. No denial of due process because the
judges appoint the state’s attorney to conduct prosecutions. Id., 366. Narcotic substances in Secs. 19-480 and 19-481 not
void for vagueness. 30 CS 267. Cited. Id., 584. Physical examination does not violate the privilege against self-incrimi-
nation. 32 CS 306. Accused in any criminal case, proceeding or prosecution, may elect, when called upon to plead, to be
tried by court instead of by jury. 33 CS 739. Cited. 34 CS 657. Exclusion of aliens from grand jury service under Sec. 54-
45 did not violate defendant’s rights since citizenship requirement bears rational relation to demands of jury service. 35
CS 98. Failure of state to pay expense of blood grouping tests for indigent defendant in paternity action does not violate
due process. Id., 679. Cited. 37 CS 506; Id., 515; Id., 678. Right to assistance of counsel held not to include employment
of persons as counsel lacking in training and qualifications established for practice of law. Id., 693. By failing to present
rebuttal evidence to price tags in evidence as to market value, defendant’s claim of denial of right to confrontation was
defeated. Id., 796. Due process cited. 38 CS 24. Cited. Id., 301. Due process cited. Id., 301; Id., 331. Right to speedy trial
and tolling of statute of limitations discussed. Id., 377. Cited. Id., 426; Id., 472; Id., 521; Id., 581; 39 CS 392; Id., 347;
Id., 273. Right to effective assistance of counsel cited. Id. Cited. Id., 273. Due process cited. Id. Cited. 40 CS 38. Taking
of property without due process cited. Id., 226. Cited. Id., 365; Id., 394. Due process rights cited. Id., 498. Cited. 41
CS 48. Right to trial by jury in criminal case cited. Id. Due process cited. Id., 229. Procedural due process, due process
problems and due process requirements cited. Id., 320. Rights to due process cited. 42 CS 1. Cited. Id., 10. Due process
cited. Id. Right of confrontation cited. Id. Right of due process cited. Id., 291. “No person shall be compelled to give
evidence against himself” protects against certain document production requests. Id., 445. Privilege against self-incrim-
ination cited. Id. Modern notion of due process cited. Id., 534. Rights to due process, counsel and confrontation cited;
right to cross-examination cited. Id., 574. Due process guarantees cited; whether unconstitutionally vague or over broad
cited. 43 CS 46. Cited. Id., 211; Id., 441; 44 CS 223. Denial of right of confrontation cited. 45 CS 1. Failure of hearing
officer to subpoena police officer in hearing on motor vehicle license suspension not violative of due process. Id., 489.
Retroactive application of statute terminating parental rights (Sec. 17a-112(c)(3)(F)) does not violate parent’s right to
due process of law. Id., 586. Defendant’s claim of ineffective counsel dismissed; defendant failed to show that counsel’s
representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness. 46 CS 344. Evidence of environmental contamination
should be excluded in eminent domain valuation proceeding; due process requires value and liability to be determined
separately to avoid inadvertent double liability. Id., 355. Failure to grant defendant’s motion for change of venue did not
violate his right to fair trial. 48 CS 82. To ensure that prior felony conviction based on a constitutionally invalid guilty
plea is not used as aggravant in a death penalty case, it is in the interests of justice that court hear evidence on whether
the plea was voluntarily and knowingly made, and defendant bears burden of establishing constitutional invalidity of
the prior plea. Id., 279. Cumulative effect of procedural deficiencies by Statewide Grievance Committee denied plaintiff
attorney his due process rights–plaintiff did not receive notice of date of continued hearings and reviewing committee
of said committee proceeded in plaintiff’s absence, and despite having prior knowledge of the conflict of interest of one
reviewing committee member, failed to obtain an alternate member to hear grievance on the continued date, in violation
of Sec. 51-90g which requires that reviewing committee consist of at least three members, therefore Statewide Grievance
Committee decisions reversed. Id., 420. Civil union legislation does not deny plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, equal
protection, due process, and right of free expression and association because civil union and marriage in Connecticut
now share same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law; Connecticut Constitution requires that there be
equal protection and due process of law, not that there be equivalent nomenclature for such protection and process. 49 CS
644. Due process requires notice and hearing under Sec. 54-76c for court to determine independently whether transfer
from youthful offender docket to regular criminal docket is appropriate. 51 CS 342.
Under-representation of a racial group on juries is not violative of any constitutional requirements. Constitution
requires only a fair jury selected without regard to race. 2 Conn. Cir. Ct. 202–205. Trial and conviction of defendant
sixty-one days after arrest held not violation of right to speedy trial. Id., 207. Right to “speedy trial” question of fact. Id.
Constitutional provisions guaranteeing a speedy trial do not apply to the commencing of prosecution. Id., 618. Constitu-
tional right to counsel has not been limited to a single attorney. 3 Conn. Cir. Ct. 104, 105. The publication in a national
magazine of an article based on the defendant’s case, written by the trial judge, and published during the pendency of the
defendant’s appeal did not prejudice his case so his right to a speedy and public trial was not violated. Judges of the ap-
pellate courts consider and decide cases on the basis of facts and law uninfluenced by extraneous matters. Id., 538, 546.
Where the crime concerned is a misdemeanor and the case is such that the defendant must prove that he is an indigent
in order to be appointed counsel, and he does not sustain his burden of proof, there is no violation of his constitutional
rights if the court fails to appoint counsel. Id., 624, 636. Dram shop act not in violation of this section. 4 Conn. Cir. Ct.
89. Cited. Id., 95, 358. It would ordinarily appear that a five-hundred dollar appeal bond for a traffic violation for which
the maximum fine is one hundred dollars would be more than what is required to secure appearance of defendant, but
there must be some finding or matter in the record on which the appellate court can act. Id., 109. Jury trial criteria (Sec.
51-266) not a violation. Id., 493. Sec. 30-100 is constitutional. Regulation of trade in liquor is in police power of state

-- 99 of 129 --

242 AMENDMENTS TO THE Art. XXIX
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
and means used are reasonable. Lack of scienter by defendant is not deprivation of his rights; many police regulations put
the risk of knowledge on the owner. Id., 565. Defendant charged with crime of keeping a gaming house was sufficiently
informed of crime he was accused of and was not entitled to bill of particulars as matter of right. 5 Conn. Cir. Ct. 78.
Jury array and panel dismissed because of deficiencies in preparation of list in unauthorized class exemptions from duty,
advertising for volunteers, etc. Id., 140. Strict interpretation of compliance with Sec. 54-16 is required where defendant
is below average intelligence or has linguistic difficulties. Id., 178. No constitutional rights of defendant were abridged
on trial for drunken driving where defendant was represented by counsel, evidence of financial status considered and
minimum fine under statute imposed. Id., 228. Denial of right of assistance of counsel at preliminary hearing was prej-
udicial and new trial ordered. Id., 242. Sec. 54-33b is constitutional and the search of defendant’s person pursuant to its
provisions was lawful. Id., 637. However forceful and persuasive the arguments may be compelling a determination that
the Connecticut disorderly conduct statute, Sec. 53-175 is unconstitutional as containing no ascertainable standard of
quiet. The circuit court should leave such a decision to higher courts. 6 Conn. Cir. Ct. 73, 77. Defendant was found guilty
on three counts of possession of policy play on a single day under Sec. 53-298. Since his offense was one continuous
offense, conviction on each of the second and third counts put him in double jeopardy and was in error. Id., 170, 173,
174, 175. Denial of a further continuance to enable the defendant to secure counsel nearly a year after his arrest does not
violate due process where to grant it would be disruptive of the court’s business or unduly delay the trial. Id., 218, 221.
Constitutional protection does not extend to crimes with sentences excluded in Sec. 51-266. Id., 558.
(Rights of accused in criminal prosecutions. What cases bailable. Speedy trial.
Due process. Excessive bail or fines. Probable cause shown at hearing, when nec-
essary. Rights of victims of crime.)
Article seventeen of the amendments to the Constitution is amended to read as
follows:
a. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself
and by counsel; to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be con-
fronted by the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process to obtain witnesses
in his behalf; to be released on bail upon sufficient security, except in capital offenses,
where the proof is evident or the presumption great; and in all prosecutions by infor-
mation, to a speedy, public trial by an impartial jury. No person shall be compelled to
give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due
process of law, nor shall excessive bail be required nor excessive fines imposed. No
person shall be held to answer for any crime, punishable by death or life imprison-
ment, unless upon probable cause shown at a hearing in accordance with procedures
prescribed by law, except in the armed forces, or in the militia when in actual service
in time of war or public danger.
b. In all criminal prosecutions, a victim, as the general assembly may define
by law, shall have the following rights: (1) The right to be treated with fairness and
respect throughout the criminal justice process; (2) the right to timely disposition of
the case following arrest of the accused, provided no right of the accused is abridged;
(3) the right to be reasonably protected from the accused throughout the criminal
justice process; (4) the right to notification of court proceedings; (5) the right to attend
the trial and all other court proceedings the accused has the right to attend, unless such
person is to testify and the court determines that such person’s testimony would be
materially affected if such person hears other testimony; (6) the right to communicate
with the prosecution; (7) the right to object to or support any plea agreement entered
into by the accused and the prosecution and to make a statement to the court prior to
the acceptance by the court of the plea of guilty or nolo contendere by the accused;
(8) the right to make a statement to the court at sentencing; (9) the right to restitu-
tion which shall be enforceable in the same manner as any other cause of action or as
otherwise provided by law; and (10) the right to information about the arrest, convic-
tion, sentence, imprisonment and release of the accused. The general assembly shall
provide by law for the enforcement of this subsection. Nothing in this subsection or in
any law enacted pursuant to this subsection shall be construed as creating a basis for
vacating a conviction or ground for appellate relief in any criminal case.

-- 100 of 129 --

Art. XXX AMENDMENTS TO THE 243
CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT