Volume 344 — Connecticut Reports

Convicted of sexual assault in the first degree, attempt to commit sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child in connection with the alleged sexual abuse of his daughter, P, on two separate occa- sions, the defendant appealed to this court. Before the defendant's trial, the state filed a notice of intent to present evidence that the defendant had inappropriately touched P in a sexual manner multiple times beyond the two charged instances. The defendant objected to the admission of such uncharged misconduct evidence, claiming, inter alia, that he was denying that the alleged sexual abuse ever occurred and that the jury could consider the uncharged misconduct as evidence of a propensity on his part to engage in sexual misconduct. The state indicated that it did not intend to offer the uncharged misconduct evidence as propensity evidence but intended to offer it under the Connecticut Code of Evidence (§ 4-5 (c)) for the purposes of proving intent, a common plan or scheme, and to complete the story of the defendant's pattern of conduct. The court overruled the defendant's objection, and P testified not only about the two charged incidents but about numerous other instances in which the defendant had allegedly touched her inappropriately. P specifically testified that the defendant had touched her inappropriately more than ten times and that he touched the inside of her vagina, her butt, and her breasts. After P testified, the court instructed the jury that P's testimony regarding these additional instances could be considered only as proof that the defendant had the intent to engage in the type of sexual behavior with which he was charged and that such behavior was not a mistake or an accident. The court also admitted into evidence video recordings of two forensic interviews of P under the hearsay exception for statements made in furtherance of medical diagnosis or treatment. P had stated in those interviews that the defendant's sexual abuse of her spanned approximately two years and beyond the date on which the last of the two charged incidents occurred, that the inappropriate touching had occurred ''all the time'' and ''every other day,'' and that the defendant had, among other things, performed oral sex on her and digitally penetrated her anus. The court did not give the jury a limiting instruction before or after the jury viewed those video recordings. In its final instructions to the jury, the trial court indicated that the evidence of other misconduct was not being admitted to prove bad character or propensity but was being admitted solely to show the defendant's intent and the absence of mistake or accident on the part of the defendant. The trial court also instructed the jury that it could consider the statements in the video recordings for their content. The prosecutor referred to the uncharged misconduct evidence in his closing argument to the jury. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that he was entitled to a new trial because the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting the uncharged misconduct evidence and that the trial court's error was harmful. Held: 1. This court declined to review the state's unpreserved claim that the judgment of conviction could be affirmed on the alternative ground that the uncharged misconduct evidence was admissible as propensity evidence under the Connecticut Code of Evidence (§ 4-5 (b)): the state did not offer the uncharged misconduct evidence at trial to demonstrate propensity, and, because this court did not know how the trial court would have exercised its discretion if the evidence had been offered to demonstrate propensity, this court would be usurping the trial court's discretion as the decision maker if it were to determine that the chal- lenged uncharged misconduct evidence would have been admissible as evidence of propensity; moreover, this court could not speculate about what defense counsel would have argued if the state had offered the evidence to demonstrate propensity, there was no record from which to assess whether the trial court would have admitted the evidence or limited its scope, the trial court would have been obligated to issue a different limiting instruction if the evidence had been admitted to show propensity, and this court could not assess whether the jury would have considered the evidence differently or have reached a different verdict, as the trial court instructed the jury several times not to consider the uncharged misconduct as evidence of propensity. 2. The trial court abused its discretion in admitting the uncharged misconduct evidence under § 4-5 (c), as it was not relevant to the issues in the case: the defendant's theory of defense did not raise a disputed issue of intent, as he claimed that the alleged inappropriate touching of P did not happen at all, he never wavered from that defense or posed a different defense, and the jury was not required to find that he had the specific intent to sexually assault P or the specific intent to put her at risk of injury in order to find him guilty of the general intent crimes with which he was charged; moreover, contrary to the state's assertion that the uncharged misconduct evidence allowed the jury to learn that the defendant had a sexual interest in P, on which he acted in sexually abusing P before and after the charged incidents, that evidence tended to show only that the defendant had the propensity to deliberately, consciously or purposefully touch P, and, because the state did not seek to admit the uncharged misconduct evidence to demonstrate propensity, there was no link between this evidence and the defendant's intent. 3. The defendant having demonstrated that the trial court's erroneous admis- sion of the uncharged misconduct evidence was harmful, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial: the state's case was not strong, as the only evidence of the defendant's guilt was P's testimony and that of those to whom she spoke, there was no corroborating physical evidence or any witnesses to the alleged sexual assaults, and, thus, the case turned largely on whether the jury believed P; moreover, the uncharged misconduct evidence detailed in P's testimony and the video recordings of the forensic interviews presented a much more shocking case than the state had charged in both the severity and the frequency of abuse, the prosecutor's summation to the jury covered a broader time frame than the span between which the two charged incidents occurred, and the court's jury instruction on the proper use of the challenged evidence could not cure the potential prejudice to the defendant. Argued December 20, 2021—officially released July 5, 2022

Convicted of sexual assault in the first degree and risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court had improperly denied his pretrial motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute within the five year limitation period set forth in the applicable statute of limitations ((Rev. to 2001) § 54-193a). In 2001, the defendant moved from his mother's home in Puerto Rico to a home in Hartford, where his uncle, R, R's girlfriend, B, and B's minor child, P, resided. In October, 2001, P reported to R and B that the defendant had sexually assaulted her, and B immediately informed the defendant that he could not stay with them anymore. The police were contacted, and, in November, 2001, they obtained a warrant for the defendant's arrest. When the police attempted to execute the warrant, R and B informed them that the defendant had left Connecticut and was living in Puerto Rico. R and B did not provide the police with the defendant's address in Puerto Rico or the name of the city or town in which he was residing, and R and B did not share that the defendant was residing with his mother. The defendant continued to reside in Puerto Rico from 2001 until 2017, with the exception of a brief period of time during 2010, when he lived in California. The defendant kept a low profile during those sixteen years, as he did not have a driver's license, pay taxes, maintain legitimate employment, or appear on any lease or rental agreement. In May, 2017, the defendant moved from Puerto Rico to Rochester, New York, and, within one month, the defendant was arrested on unrelated charges. The defendant ultimately was returned to Connecticut, and the police served him with the arrest warrant in June, 2017. In support of his motion to dismiss, the defendant contended that, although the arrest warrant had been issued within the applicable five year limitation period, the police did not execute it without unreasonable delay, there having been a sixteen year gap between the issuance of the warrant in 2001 and the execution of the warrant in 2017, and, therefore, that the limita- tion period was not tolled. In denying the defendant's motion, the trial court concluded that the defendant had failed to demonstrate his avail- ability for arrest during the period between the issuance and the execu- tion of the warrant. On appeal from the judgment of conviction, held that the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, as that court's finding that the defendant was not available for arrest during the relevant time period was not clearly erroneous: the defendant did not challenge on appeal, and there was evidence in the record to support, the trial court's findings that the defendant abruptly departed Hartford for Puerto Rico when P made her accusation, the defendant already had relocated by the time the police secured a warrant for his arrest, for almost the entirety of the next sixteen years, the defendant remained in Puerto Rico, during those sixteen years, the defendant led an existence that could be characterized as off the grid, and that these certainly were circumstances that made the defendant difficult to appre- hend; moreover, the defendant failed to present any evidence to suggest that his address or other identifying information would have appeared in a public database, and, even if R and B did know the defendant's whereabouts, as the defendant claimed, they never shared that informa- tion with the police; furthermore, there was no merit to the defendant's claim that his availability for arrest was established insofar as he did not go to Puerto Rico in order to evade prosecution, as the trial court did not credit the defendant's testimony that he left for Puerto Rico because he was forced to leave R and B's home in Hartford and had no other place to live, and the court found that the defendant's decision to leave Hartford was based, at least in part, on his efforts to avoid prosecution; accordingly, because the defendant did not satisfy his bur- den of establishing that he was available for arrest, the trial court cor- rectly determined that the burden did not shift to the state to show the reasonableness of the delay in executing the defendant's arrest warrant. Argued February 24—officially released July 12, 2022

The plaintiff appealed to the trial court from the decision of the defendant plan and zoning commission, which granted extensions of the approvals of a special permit and coastal site plan review to the defendant F Co. in connection with F Co.'s proposed construction of a retail building on its property, which abuts the plaintiff's property. The commission had approved F Co.'s application for a special permit and site plan review in 2006, and the special permit became effective in April, 2009. Under the applicable zoning regulations in effect in April, 2009, approval of special permits was conditioned on the completion of the proposed use within two years of the date of approval, subject to up to five years of extensions, and failure to complete the proposed use by the deadline would void the approval. The statute (§ 8-3 (i)) governing F Co.'s site plan in April, 2009, required work to be completed within five years of the approval of the site plan, subject to up to ten years of extensions, and failure to complete the proposed work by the deadline would result in the automatic expiration of the approval of the site plan. In February, 2011, the commission repealed the zoning regulation that prescribed the two year time limit for completing the proposed use authorized by a special permit and amended another regulation to require the commission to ''proceed in accordance with the requirements of the . . . General Statutes'' for applications that require a public hearing, including special permit applications. F Co. thereafter obtained confir- mation from the commission that, pursuant to the 2011 amendment to the zoning regulations and § 8-3 (i), its special permit and site plan approvals would expire in April, 2014. In May, 2011, the legislature amended § 8-3 (m) to extend the time limitation for which site plans remain valid to nine years, which extended the deadline for the comple- tion of work under F Co.'s site plan to April, 2018. In March, 2018, F Co.'s property remained undeveloped, and the commission granted F Co.'s request for a five year extension, to April, 2023, to complete work in connection with F Co.'s site plan and special permit. The trial court sustained the plaintiff's appeal from that extension insofar as the plaintiff challenged the commission's authority to extend the expiration date of the special permit to April, 2023. The trial court further concluded, however, that its decision to uphold the plaintiff's challenge to the extension of the expiration date of the special permit approval did not operate to invalidate the special permit because special permits attach to the property and run with the land and, therefore, could not be temporally limited. Accordingly, the trial court declined to conclude that the permit had expired or was otherwise invalid. The plaintiff then appealed to the Appellate Court, which concluded that the trial court had incorrectly determined that the special permit was valid indefinitely and could not be subject to a temporal limitation. The Appellate Court further concluded that, once the special permit became effective in April, 2009, F Co. had two years, subject to any granting of extensions, to complete its development of the property and that, because F Co. failed to complete its development of the property or to request any extensions within that two year period, F Co.'s special permit expired in April, 2011. The Appellate Court thus reversed the trial court's judg- ment in part and remanded the case with direction to render judgment sustaining the plaintiff's appeal as to the plaintiff's claim that the special permit had expired in April, 2011. On the granting of certification, F Co. appealed to this court, claiming that the Appellate Court had incorrectly concluded that the commission was authorized by statute (§ 8-2 (a)) to condition the approval of a special permit on the completion of development within a specified time period and that the special permit issued to F Co. expired in April, 2011, two years after its April, 2009 effective date, because construction had not been completed by that deadline. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that F Co.'s special permit expired in April, 2011, and, accordingly, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment, remanded the case, and directed that the trial court deny the plaintiff's appeal: a zoning agency has the authority under § 8-2 (a) to adopt a regulation pursuant to which a special permit will expire if construction is not completed within a specified period of time, but, if a zoning agency exercises such authority, the time limitation imposed cannot conflict with the time limitation prescribed in § 8-3 (i) and (m); moreover, in light of the statutory amend- ments to § 8-3 extending the time limits for site plans, the statutory period governing the completion of development in connection with F Co.'s site plan had not yet expired when F Co. requested an extension of time in 2018, and, therefore, F Co.'s special permit could not have expired on the basis of its failure to complete its work within that time; accordingly, the commission properly granted F Co.'s request for an extension of time from April, 2018, to April, 2023. Argued December 13, 2021—officially released July 19, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-572h (o)), there shall be no apportionment claims between a party liable for negligence and a party liable on any basis other than negligence, including ''liability pursuant to any cause of action created by statute, except that liability may be apportioned among par- ties liable for negligence in any cause of action created by statute based on negligence . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 52-557n (b)), ''a political subdivision of the state or any employee, officer or agent acting within the scope of his employment or official duties shall not be liable for damages to person or property resulting from . . . (8) failure to make an inspection or making an inadequate or negligent inspection of any property . . . to determine whether the property complies with or violates any law or contains a hazard to health or safety, unless the political subdivision had notice of such a violation of law or such a hazard . . . .'' The named plaintiff, as the administratrix of her daughter's estate, sought to recover damages from the defendants, a town and two of its employ- ees, in connection with her daughter's drowning in a privately owned swimming pool. The plaintiff was a tenant of the property on which the incident occurred. The pool did not have a self-closing and self-latching gate or a pool alarm, both of which were required by the state building code. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants had issued a building permit for the pool prior to inspecting it to ensure that the mandated safety features were installed. The defendants thereafter filed a notice of intent to seek apportionment of liability against the owners of the property and an apportionment complaint against the former tenants of the property, who had the pool constructed. The plaintiff objected to the defendants' efforts to seek apportionment, claiming that her complaint set forth a cause of action alleging recklessness or an intentional act under § 52-557n (b) (8), rather than negligence and, there- fore, that apportionment was precluded under § 52-572h (o). The trial court agreed and issued orders sustaining the plaintiff's objections and dismissing the defendants' apportionment complaint and notice of intent to seek apportionment. The defendants appealed to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court's orders. The Appellate Court determined that § 52-572h (o) did not prohibit the defendants from seeking appor- tionment in the present case, reasoning that the plaintiff set forth allega- tions in her complaint that fell within the first exception to municipal immunity in § 52-557n (b) (8), which subjects a municipality to liability for injuries that occur as a result of a failure to inspect or the inadequate or negligent inspection of a property to determine whether the property complies with or violates any law or contains a health or safety hazard when the municipality had notice of such a violation of law or such a hazard, and that that exception incorporated a negligence standard. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The trial court's orders dismissing the defendants' apportionment com- plaint and notice of intent to seek apportionment constituted a final judgment permitting interlocutory appellate review; the decisions of the trial court sustaining the plaintiff's objections to the defendants' apportionment complaint and notice of intent to seek apportionment resulted in judgment on the defendants' entire apportionment complaint and notice of intent to seek apportionment and, therefore, were appeal- able under the rule of practice (§ 61-2) providing that a judgment ren- dered on an entire complaint constitutes an appealable final judgment. 2. The Appellate Court correctly concluded that the trial court had improp- erly sustained the plaintiff's objections to the defendants' apportionment complaint and notice of intent to seek apportionment, as the defendants should have been permitted to seek apportionment because the plaintiff alleged, at least in part, a cause of action created by statute based on negligence for purposes of § 52-572h (o): the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendants under § 52-557n (b) (8) was created by statute for purposes of § 52-572h (o), as this court previously had held that a municipality can be held liable under § 52-557n (b) (8) in the inspection context when it has notice of a hazardous condition; moreover, this court determined that the phrase ''cause of action . . . based on negli- gence'' in § 52-572h (o) means a cause of action that derives from a claim alleging that the defendant failed to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation, and, in light of the absence of any reference to recklessness or a reference to the terms ''intentional,'' ''wilful,'' or ''wanton'' in the first exception to municipal immunity in § 52-557n (b) (8) for the failure to inspect or the inadequate or negligent inspection when the municipal- ity has notice of a violation of law or hazard, this court concluded that the legislature intended for a claim under that exception to be based on the negligence concepts; furthermore, the terms ''failure,'' ''inade- quate,'' and ''negligent'' in that first exception also supported the conclu- sion that the conduct giving rise to a claim under that exception is based on negligence; in the present case, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants were liable under § 52-557n (b) (8) in part because the defen- dant town employees had notice of the pool, notice that it did not have a self-closing and self-latching gate, and notice that it did not have a pool alarm, and, because those allegations stated a cause of action created by statute based on negligence, § 52-572h (o) did not preclude the defendants from seeking apportionment of liability from the owners of the property and the former tenants who had the pool constructed. Argued December 17, 2021—officially released July 19, 2022

Convicted of the crimes of murder and criminal possession of a firearm in connection with the shooting death of the victim near a gas station in New Haven, the defendant appealed to this court. At trial, the state presented a witness who qualified as an expert in historical cell site analysis and testified that the defendant's cell phone utilized cell towers near the gas station around the time of the shooting. In order to corrobo- rate the defendant's theory that he was not present at the gas station at the time of the shooting, defense counsel proffered testimony from O, an investigator for a private investigation company who had received training in cell phone analytics, as to the defendant's location at relevant times on the basis of certain cell phone carrier data. The trial court sustained the prosecutor's objections to O's proffered testimony and precluded O from testifying on the grounds that the evidence was imma- terial and irrelevant, O did not possess sufficient qualifications to provide expert testimony on the cell phone carrier data, and O did not establish the reliability of the methodology on which he relied. On appeal, the defendant contended that the trial court had violated his constitutional right to present a defense by precluding O's testimony. Although the defendant acknowledged that his right to present a defense was limited by the rules of evidence, he nevertheless claimed that the trial court had improperly excluded O's testimony because O was qualified as an expert pursuant to the applicable provision (§ 7-2) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence, which permits testimony by a qualified expert when his or her testimony will assist the fact finder in understanding the evidence or in determining a disputed fact. Held that the defendant's appeal was dismissed as moot; even if this court agreed with the defen- dant that the trial court improperly had determined that O lacked suffi- cient qualifications under § 7-2 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence to provide expert testimony on the cell phone carrier data, this court could not afford the defendant any practical relief, as there were two independent grounds for the trial court's exclusion of O's testimony that the defendant did not challenge on appeal, namely, that the proffered evidence was immaterial and irrelevant and that O did not establish the reliability of the methodology on which he relied. Argued March 22—officially released July 26, 2022

Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had violated his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel by failing to conduct any inquiry into defense counsel's alleged conflict of interest arising from counsel's prior repre- sentation of the victim's son, D. On appeal, this court agreed with the defendant that the trial court had a duty to conduct such an inquiry when the issue was brought to that court's attention in a motion to dismiss counsel and during the defendant's sentencing hearing. This court also concluded, however, that the record was insufficient to deter- mine whether the defendant's claim had merit and, therefore, remanded the case to the trial court for it to determine whether defense counsel had such a conflict and, if so, whether that conflict adversely affected her representation of the defendant. In light of that remand order, this court declined to reach the defendant's additional claim that the trial court had improperly admitted the testimony of three lay witnesses identifying the defendant in surveillance video footage from a store near the crime scene. The footage depicted, inter alia, two men, with their faces visible, approaching and entering the store together before the victim's murder. Additional footage from a different camera angle depicted the backs of two men, dressed similar to those in the other footage, making their way to, and then standing at, the intersection where the murder occurred. Subsequent footage showed one of the men attacking the other man and then running down the street toward the direction of the store. On remand, the trial court, following a hearing at which the defendant and defense counsel testified, determined that the defendant did not timely raise his conflict of interest claim and that, even if he had done so, he failed to establish that defense counsel was burdened by an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected her performance. After the case returned to this court, the defendant chal- lenged the trial court's determination concerning counsel's alleged con- flict of interest, and this court addressed the defendant's evidentiary claim. Held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that defense counsel's prior representa- tion of D did not create an actual conflict of interest that adversely affected her representation of the defendant: even if this court assumed that the defendant's conflict of interest claim was timely, there was no evidence that the defendant's and defense counsel's interests ever diverged with respect to any material factual or legal issue, or with respect to a course of action, or that counsel's representation of the defendant was otherwise impaired as a result of her loyalty to D; more- over, the trial court credited counsel's testimony that, during her repre- sentation of D, she learned nothing that she was prevented from using in her defense of the defendant and that the strategies and tactics she employed at trial were entirely unencumbered and uninfluenced by anything relating to her representation of D, and that court's factual findings, including that defense counsel's brief representation of D had no effect on the course of the defendant's trial, were not clearly errone- ous; furthermore, there was no merit to the defendant's contention that an attorney's prior representation of a relative of the victim in a criminal case creates a per se conflict of interest. 2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of three lay witnesses identifying the defendant in surveillance video foot- age: pursuant to the rule recently established in State v. Gore (343 Conn. 129), lay opinion testimony concerning the identification of a criminal defendant depicted in a surveillance video is admissible if, in accordance with the provision (§ 7-1) of the Code of Evidence governing the admissi- bility of lay opinion testimony, it is rationally based on the perception of the witness and is helpful to a clear understanding of that witness' testimony or the determination of a fact in issue; moreover, such testi- mony meets the requirements of § 7-1 if, in light of the totality of the circumstances, there is some basis for concluding that the witness is more likely than the jury to correctly identify the defendant from the footage; in the present case, the totality of the circumstances favored admission of the challenged testimony, as it was undisputed that all three witnesses were sufficiently familiar with the defendant, and, although the defendant was not wearing a disguise during the commission of the murder and the record did not indicate whether the defendant's appearance had changed between the time the surveillance video footage was recorded and the time of trial, the quality of the video weighed in favor of admission of the challenged testimony, as the subject in the video was wearing a hat pulled down over his ears and a winter jacket, and, at certain angles, his face was obscured by either the dark lighting or his movements; accordingly, this court could not conclude that the witnesses, all of whom knew the defendant exceedingly well, could be of no assistance to or were no better suited than the jury in identifying the defendant in the surveillance video footage. 3. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that it would be improper for this court to apply Gore retroactively to this case because Gore was decided on the basis of policy considerations rather than on constitu- tional grounds: judicial decisions generally apply retroactively to pend- ing cases, and this court's application of the rule set forth in Gore did not give rise to any of the concerns highlighted in Neyland v. Board of Education (195 Conn. 174), which established the test for determining whether a judicial decision should be applied prospectively only, because, although Gore established a new principle of law by overruling past precedent holding that the rule limiting lay opinion testimony on the ultimate issue precludes the admission of lay opinion testimony identifying a defendant in video surveillance footage when that identifi- cation embraces an ultimate issue, the defendant did not argue or demon- strate that he relied to his detriment on one legal standard over another during the events underlying this case, the underlying trial, or in bringing the present appeal, despite being afforded an opportunity to do so in the supplemental briefing ordered by this court to address the applicabil- ity of Gore to this case; moreover, the result in this appeal would have been the same under the pre-Gore rule in view of the witnesses' strong familiarity with the defendant and the fact that their testimony did not address the ultimate issue in this case insofar as the witnesses did not identify the defendant from the video surveillance footage depicting the attack but identified the defendant in footage placing him near the crime scene at or around the time of the attack. Argued November 24, 2020—officially released July 26, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 12-64 (a)), the following property, if not exempted, shall be taxed as real property: ''Dwelling houses, garages, barns, sheds, stores, shops, mills, buildings used for business, commercial, financial, manufacturing, mercantile and trading purposes, ice houses, ware- houses, silos, [and] all other buildings and structures . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 12-41 (c)), ''[t]he annual declaration of the tangible personal property owned by such person on the assessment date, shall include, but is not limited to . . . [m]achinery used in mills and factories, cables, wires, poles, underground mains, conduits, pipes and other fixtures of water, gas, electric and heating companies . . . .'' The plaintiff, which owns and operates a wind to electricity generation facility in the defendant town, appealed to the trial court from the decision of the town's board of assessment appeals. The board had denied the plaintiff's appeal from the town assessor's allegedly improper classification of its two wind turbines and the equipment associated with the turbines as real property pursuant to § 12-64 (a), rather than personal property pursuant to § 12-41 (c), and its appeal from the asses- sor's overvaluation and overassessment of the plaintiff's property. The turbines, which each consist of a tower, a hub, a nacelle, and a three blade rotor, are located on one parcel of land and controlled by a remote computer system, which, along with its associated equipment and software, is stored on an adjacent parcel of land. The tower of each turbine is more than 300 feet in height, contains a control panel and other equipment accessible through an exterior door at its base, and is bolted into a separate concrete foundation. The turbines were designed to remain in place for twenty years, after which the plaintiff agreed to decommission them. On its 2015 declaration of personal property, the plaintiff apparently included the value of the turbines and the associated equipment. The town assessor, however, determined that the turbines should be taxed as real property and that the costs incurred in the development of the facility containing the turbines should be considered in the valuation of the turbines for purposes of assessment and taxation. The town then hired a certified general real estate appraiser, whose appraisal the assessor used to determine the assessed value and fair market value for the parcel on which the turbines were situated. The assessor continued to use those values on the town's grand list in 2016, 2017, and 2018. On appeal to the trial court, the plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the assessor had improperly classified the turbines as real property and had overvalued and overassessed its property. In support of the latter claim, the plaintiff introduced testimony from its own appraiser, D, who based his appraisal on the cost and income approaches, treated the wind turbines and associated equipment as personal property, and ultimately determined that the fair market value of the plaintiff's property was significantly less than the town's fair market valuation. The trial court rejected those claims, concluding, inter alia, that the assessor properly classified the wind turbines as real property under § 12-64 (a) because they were ''buildings'' or ''structures'' within the meaning of that statute and that the equipment associated with the turbines was also real property. The court also found that, given those conclusions, the plaintiff had failed to establish its allegations of overvaluation and overassessment because D's appraisal treated the wind turbines and associated equipment as personal property. From the judgment rendered thereon in favor of the town, the plaintiff appealed. Held: 1. The trial court correctly concluded that the wind turbines were taxable as real property pursuant to § 12-64 (a) but incorrectly concluded that the equipment associated with the turbines also was taxable as real property instead of personal property under the ''fixtures of . . . elec- tric . . . companies'' provision of § 12-41 (c): this court previously has construed and applied the word ''building,'' as used in § 12-64 (a), to include edifices that are enclosed and suitable for occupancy or storage and that are virtually permanent, the trial court found that the interior of the base of each wind turbine was large enough to be occupied by several individuals at one time and that the turbines were virtually permanent, insofar as they were completely enclosed, designed to remain in place for twenty years, and would cost up to approximately $3 million to decommission, and, therefore, the trial court correctly determined that the turbines were taxable as buildings pursuant to § 12- 64 (a); moreover, the wind turbines also constituted structures within the meaning of § 12-64 (a), as a review of the legislative history of the statute, including a recent amendment thereto, revealed that, when the legislature added the word ''structures'' to the ''all other buildings and structures'' catchall provision of § 12-64 (a), it intended the broad, com- monly approved usage of the word, namely, ''something . . . that is constructed,'' and applying the canon of ejusdem generis to limit ''struc- tures'' narrowly to edifices, like those enumerated in the statute, that are enclosed and suitable for occupancy would render the addition of the word ''structures'' to that catchall provision superfluous; furthermore, although the wind turbines themselves could not be considered fixtures, insofar as they did not have the character of personal property, the turbines' associated equipment could be considered fixtures and, there- fore, was taxable as personal property pursuant to the ''fixtures of . . . electric . . . companies'' provision of § 12-41 (c), and, because the trial court incorrectly determined that the equipment associated with the turbines was taxable as real property pursuant to § 12-64 (a) rather personal property taxable pursuant to § 12-41 (c), a remand to the trial court was necessary for, inter alia, a factual determination regarding the valuation of the equipment taxable under § 12-41 (c). 2. The trial court incorrectly concluded that the plaintiff had not established its allegations of overvaluation and overassessment, and, accordingly, the case was remanded for a determination regarding the amount of the reassessment that would be just: the trial court's rejection of D's appraisal, which treated the turbines and associated equipment as per- sonal property, was premised on the conclusion that the turbines and associated equipment were taxable as real property, and, in light of this court's conclusion that the associated equipment must be treated as personal property pursuant to § 12-41 (c), the trial court's failure to consider D's appraisal lacked a legal basis and, thus, was clearly errone- ous; moreover, because the record established that the valuation the trial court accepted classified the associated equipment as real property when it should have been classified separately as personal property, it could not be reasonably contended that the defendant did not overvalue the real property. (One justice concurring separately) Argued January 19—officially released August 2, 2022

Pursuant to the emergency exception to the warrant requirement of the fourth amendment to the United States constitution, the police are permitted to enter a home without a warrant when they have an objec- tively reasonable basis for believing that an occupant is seriously injured or imminently threatened with such injury. Convicted of the crimes of murder, assault in the first degree, and attempt to commit assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court improperly had denied his motion to suppress certain evidence seized by the police as a result of their warrantless entry into his home. Prior to the challenged entry, the defen- dant's neighbor contacted the police because he and other neighbors were concerned that they had not seen the defendant's father, S, who lived with the defendant, in a long time. Thereafter, two police officers were dispatched to the defendant's residence to check on S's well-being. The officers assessed the exterior of the residence, knocked on the doors, and called into open windows but received no response and concluded that no one was home. Immediately after the well-being check, one of the officers was told by his supervising officer that the defendant had, or possibly had, mental health issues. Four days later, the defendant's neighbor again contacted the police and requested another well-being check. The officers conducting the second well-being check were warned that the defendant was possibly a mentally disturbed person. Upon their arrival, the officers spoke with the neighbor, who told them that, after the previous visit by the police, the defendant covered the lower rear windows with chicken wire. The neighbor also indicated that he noticed a mass of flies around the upper rear window of the residence. One of the officers believed, based on his prior experi- ence, that the sheer number of flies indicated that there might be a dead body inside the house. Using a ladder, one of the officers climbed to the upper rear window, which had been propped open slightly with an air freshener. There were flies everywhere but no odor. The officer looked into the window but was unable to see anything noteworthy. Both officers then contacted their supervisor because they believed that entry into the residence might be necessary for the well-being of both S and the defendant. After arriving at the residence and being apprised of the situation, the supervisor concluded that there was a dead body in the home and that they would need to enter the residence to see if anyone inside needed assistance. One of the officers thereafter cut a screen and entered the residence through an open second floor window. After announcing his presence and not receiving a response, the officer went downstairs and opened the front door. The defendant then shot the officer and fled the residence. Soon thereafter, the defendant was apprehended, and the officers entered the home to secure it and to search for any injured persons. Police officers eventually found a badly decomposed body on the second floor. Thereafter, the police obtained a search warrant, and the defendant voluntarily gave a statement to the police in which he admitted that he had shot S several months earlier and that, when S's body started to smell, he sealed the room in which it was located. In denying the defendant's motion to suppress the seizure of S's dead body, the trial court concluded, inter alia, that the officers' entry into the home was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement because that entry was objectively reasonable under the totality of the circumstances. On appeal, the defendant claimed, inter alia, that the facts did not provide an objectively reason- able basis for the police officers to conclude that there was an emergency justifying a warrantless entry into his residence. Held that, under the totality of the circumstances, it was objectively reasonable for the offi- cers to conclude that there was an emergency justifying their initial entry into the defendant's home, and, accordingly, the trial court properly denied the defendant's motion to suppress: the defendant could not prevail on his claim that it was unclear, in light of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Caniglia v. Strom (141 S. Ct. 1596), whether a warrantless entry into a home is still permitted to assist a person who is injured or facing imminent injury, as this court found no such ambiguity in that decision and observed that other courts have continued to apply the emergency exception post-Caniglia; moreover, although the state did not meet its burden of establishing that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that the defendant required emer- gency assistance, it did meet its burden of establishing that it was objectively reasonable for the officers to believe that S required immedi- ate emergency assistance, as the record indicated that S was an elderly man who had not been seen by any of his neighbors for at least one month, the family's only vehicle had not been moved since S was last seen, S did not respond to the officers' knocks on the door or shouts into the open windows, and there was an extraordinary infestation of flies around the upper rear window of the residence, which led the officers to believe, on the basis of their past experience, that the most likely explanation for the infestation was the presence of a dead body, and which also left open the possibility that an occupant might be injured rather than dead; furthermore, the defendant's mental condition was a relevant factor in the officers' calculation of whether S needed emer- gency assistance and what actions were necessary to provide that assis- tance, as the defendant's conduct in attempting to fortify the home against intruders and in refusing to answer the door would have indicated to the officers that they were not going to be able to obtain timely information from the defendant about the whereabouts or condition of S, and the defendant's failure to remediate the fly infestation in plain view reasonably suggested that his mental condition may have impaired his capacity to appreciate the gravity of the conditions that existed and the need to elicit prompt medical assistance; in addition, there was no merit to the defendant's contentions that the officers' actions in driving to the residence without activating their emergency lights or sirens and waiting for their supervisor's approval before entering the residence indicated that they did not perceive the situation as an emergency, and that the officers failed to consider alternative explanations for the facts presented that would indicate that no emergency existed. Argued March 24—officially released August 9, 2022

Convicted of various crimes, including first degree robbery, first degree assault, second degree arson, and attempt to commit murder, charged in five cases that were joined for trial, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant, along with G, P, and another individual, all of whom were fellow gang members, had agreed to rob a food deliveryman. When the deliveryman, H, arrived at the requested location, two men wearing dark clothing and ski masks approached him. One of the men pointed a gun at H's chest and demanded his wallet. After taking the wallet and the food, the two returned to a red hatchback and drove away. Five days after that incident, G's cell phone was used to place a delivery order at a restaurant. When the deliveryman, C, arrived at the requested location, he was approached by two men wearing ski masks and hoodies, one of whom was armed. The armed assailant shot C's phone out of his hand, and, when C requested that the men leave behind his wallet after they took his money, the armed assailant shot C in the leg. Both men then entered C's Toyota Camry and drove away. The red hatchback in which the men arrived followed the Camry. Later that night, the police responded to a report of a burning vehicle described as a burgundy Subaru Forester. A subsequent investigation revealed security camera footage from a nearby gas station showing both the Forester and the stolen Camry pulling into the gas station approximately one-half hour before the police received the report of the burning vehicle. The footage showed the driver of the Camry purchasing gas and then pumping it directly into the backseat of the Forester. Five days later, the defendant was driving with G, P, and another individual in the Camry when they saw F, a rival gang member. The defendant lowered the vehicle's front passenger window and fired a gun toward F, who ran away uninjured. The defendant later spotted F again, and, while wearing a ski mask, the defendant followed F into a convenience store and shot him in the head. The defendant then returned to the Camry, and the group drove away. Six days later, the police observed the Camry and, after learning that it had been stolen, conducted a stop of the vehicle. Both the defendant and G were apprehended while trying to flee the vehicle. At the time of his arrest, the police seized a cell phone from the defendant. The defendant filed a pretrial motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to both a warrant issued for the search of his cell phone and a warrant issued to his cell phone's service provider for his phone records and cell site location information (CSLI). The trial court denied the motion. On direct appeal from the judgments of conviction, held: 1. The trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search of his cell phone because the applicable search warrant was not supported by probable cause and did not particularly describe the places to be searched and the things to be seized: the application for the warrant indicated that the defen- dant's cell phone constituted evidence that a particular person partici- pated in aggravated assault, and the facts contained in the affidavit attached to the application were not sufficient to allow the judge issuing the warrant reasonably to conclude that there was probable cause to believe that evidence of the crime of aggravated assault would be found on the defendant's cell phone because, although the affidavit described in detail the robbery of H, the robbery and shooting of C, the theft of the Camry, the car arson, the shootings involving F, and G's role in those events, it did not mention the defendant's involvement in or con- nection to those events, and the defendant's cell phone was likewise never tied to the crime of aggravated assault; moreover, even if sufficient probable cause existed, the warrant would fail for lack of particularity insofar as it did not sufficiently limit the search of the contents of the cell phone by a description of the areas within the phone to be searched or by a time frame reasonably related to the crimes. 2. The trial court improperly denied the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from his cell phone's service provider because the applicable search warrant was not supported by probable cause: the warrant indicated that the defendant's cell phone had been or could have been used as a means of committing the offense of attempt to commit murder, and the issuing judge reasonably could not have con- cluded that there was a substantial chance that evidence of the shooting of F would be found in the defendant's cell phone records, as nothing in the affidavit submitted in connection with the warrant connected the defendant to the attempt to murder F or demonstrated that his cell phone was either used during the commission of that crime or otherwise contained evidence of it; moreover, the state could not prevail on its claim that, because the affidavit referred to the defendant's arrest war- rant that was issued on facts sufficient to constitute probable cause that the defendant was involved in the shooting of F, the judge issuing the search warrant was entitled to rely on the arrest warrant to establish probable cause, as a determination of probable cause for an arrest requires different findings than a determination of probable cause for a search warrant, and the search warrant affidavit did not contain the factual allegations and evidence that led to the defendant's arrest, which would have enabled the issuing judge to determine whether those allega- tions established probable cause to believe that evidence of the attempt to murder F existed in the cell phone carrier records at issue; further- more, this court determined that there was insufficient information to assess the validity of the defendant's claim that the search warrant for the defendant's cell phone records lacked particularity, because, although the warrant identified a specific list of items to be searched and seized, and sought records only for a limited duration that were reasonably connected with the attempt to murder F, there was a lack of information in the affidavit relating to the defendant's role in that crime or the connection between the defendant's cell phone and the crime. 3. Any error in denying the defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the two search warrants was harmless with respect to the charges relating to the robbery of H, the shootings involving F, and the defendant's attempt to flee from the Camry to avoid arrest, but was harmful with respect to the charges relating to the robbery and shooting of C, the larceny of the Camry, and the car arson: the evidence against the defendant with respect to the robbery of H was principally derived from P's testimony, and there was no data from the cell phone or the defendant's cell phone service provider relating to that incident; moreover, the state established a motive for the shootings involving F, and video surveillance footage corroborated P's testimony relating to one of the shootings; furthermore, it was highly unlikely that the CSLI from the defendant's phone, which placed him in the area where the stolen Camry was stopped by the police, affected the jury's decision with respect to the charge of interfering with an officer, as the police apprehended the defendant after he attempted to flee from that vehicle and his fingerprints were discovered inside the vehicle; nevertheless, the CSLI was the most concrete and direct evidence placing the defendant at the scene of the robbery and assault of C, where the Camry was also stolen, and the omission of the CSLI would have reduced the certainty that the defendant was involved in the burning of the Forester; accord- ingly, this court affirmed the defendant's convictions relating to the robbery of H, the shooting of F, and his flight from the police but reversed the defendant's convictions relating to the robbery and shooting of C, the theft of the Camry, and the burning of the Forester. Argued March 22—officially released August 9, 2022

Convicted of numerous crimes, including felony murder, in connection with the shooting death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. Six days after the victim was found dead in a park with a gunshot wound to his head, the police stopped the defendant, who was driving the victim's missing vehicle, and found two of the victim's credit cards in the defendant's pocket. The defendant was arrested, and the police interviewed him and seized his cell phone. While incarcerated, the defen- dant asked his mother to dispose of the clothes that he was wearing on the night of the murder and asked his sister to dispose of a revolver that was stored at his grandmother's house. The police subsequently executed search warrants at the defendant's residence and his grand- mother's house, where they recovered the clothing and the revolver, respectively. The police also obtained a search warrant to extract and search the data on the defendant's cell phone. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to that war- rant. The trial court denied that motion, and, at trial, the state admitted evidence of call logs and text messages between the defendant and the victim, call logs and text messages between the defendant and another individual, B, and a photograph of a revolver. The defendant testified in his own defense, denying his involvement in the crimes and stating that, although he had been at the park with the victim, another individual, S, had shot the victim. S denied knowing the victim or being present at the park but testified that, because he did not own a cell phone, B occasionally let him use her phone. From the judgment of conviction, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that the trial court improp- erly had denied his motion to suppress because the warrant authorizing the police to extract and search the contents of his cell phone lacked a particular description of the things to be seized and was not supported by probable cause. Held that the state satisfied its burden of demonstra- ting that any error with respect to the trial court's failure to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to the search warrant was harmless, as such evidence either was not used by the state to implicate the defendant or was cumulative of other evidence, and, accordingly, this court affirmed the judgment of conviction: evidence regarding the phone calls and text messages between the victim's and the defendant's cell phones was otherwise available through the victim's cell phone records, which the police had obtained prior to interviewing the defendant, and the defendant admitted that those records accurately reflected the communi- cations between them; moreover, even without those text messages, there was abundant video and testimonial evidence demonstrating that the defendant and the victim were together on the evening in question; furthermore, B's testimony about receiving certain text messages and phone calls from the defendant on the day in question rendered the evidence of those calls and messages cumulative, and the photograph of the revolver obtained from the defendant's cell phone was cumulative insofar as the revolver itself was introduced at trial; in addition, there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, as the defendant was found driving the victim's car and in possession of his credit cards, which the defendant had been using since the victim's murder, video and testimonial evidence established that the defendant and the victim were together on the evening of the murder, the defendant requested that his sister and mother dispose of incriminating physical evidence, which demonstrated the defendant's consciousness of guilt and undercut his assertion that he was not involved in the charged crimes, and the defendant displayed a consistent lack of credibility by providing several contradictory versions of the events and by acknowledging that he had lied to the police. Argued February 16—officially released August 9, 2022

Convicted of two counts of the crime of murder, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant was a passenger in a car when the driver stopped to speak to two women on a street in the city of Hartford. When one of two men who had been walking behind the women told the occupants of the car to leave, the defendant shot both men. The police recovered spent cartridge casings at the scene, and, prior to trial, the state filed a motion seeking to present evidence of uncharged misconduct relating to two prior shootings on two different streets in Hartford in support of its claim that the defendant had possessed the means to cause the victims' deaths. Defense counsel objected, claiming that such evidence was inadmissible because it was irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative. The court ruled that the uncharged miscon- duct evidence was admissible to prove means and identity, but it limited the scope of the evidence to facts that connected the firearm used in the prior shootings to the firearm used during the shooting of the two victims. At trial, the state presented the testimony of S and D, the officers who collected the fired bullets and cartridge casings following the prior shootings that formed the basis of the uncharged misconduct evidence, the testimony of L and W, friends of the defendant who identified him as the shooter in those prior shootings, and J, a firearms expert who testified, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that the cartridge casings from the prior shootings and the murders of the victims were all from the same firearm. The court instructed the jury five times during the trial that the uncharged misconduct evidence was being admitted for the limited purposes of establishing that the defendant had the means to murder the victims and establishing the identity of the shooter of the victims. On appeal, the defendant claimed that the trial court improperly had admitted the evidence of uncharged misconduct because J's testi- mony was not relevant or material to identity, insofar as J's methodology was not scientifically reliable, and because the prejudicial effect of the prior misconduct evidence outweighed its probative value. Held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence of uncharged misconduct tying the firearm used in the prior shootings to the firearm used in the murders of the victims to prove that the defendant was the individual who shot the victims: the defendant's claim challeng- ing the relevance of J's testimony in light of its lack of scientific reliability was unavailing, as the defendant's failure to request a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter (241 Conn. 57) deprived the trial court of the opportu- nity to assess J's methodology and, thus, the reliability of J's testimony, the defendant's claim on appeal represented an inappropriate effort to avoid the requirement that a challenge to scientific methodology must be raised at trial during a Porter hearing, and, in view of the broad definition of relevance, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting J's ballistics evidence tying the prior shootings to the shooting of the victims to prove the identity of the shooter; moreover, any prejudi- cial effect from the uncharged misconduct evidence was outweighed by its probative value, as the facts of the prior shootings, which were clearly probative of means and identity, were less severe than the facts of the shooting of the victims, and the court limited the extent of the testimony of S and D to their response to the prior shootings and their collection of projectiles at the scene of those shootings, and the testimony of L and W to their witnessing of the defendant shoot a firearm at those locations, so as to ensure that the relevant facts were shorn of prejudicial and irrelevant detail and that the jury was not distracted by matters that were not pertinent to the charges; furthermore, the prior misconduct evidence was not merely cumulative of other evidence but highly probative, as it was the only evidence connecting the defendant directly to the firearm used to shoot the victims, and L's and W's testi- mony was critical to establishing the shooter's identity; in addition, the fact that the prior shootings occurred less than three months before the shooting of the victims contributed to the probative value of the uncharged misconduct evidence, and the court instructed the jury no fewer than five times throughout the course of the trial regarding the limited purpose for which the uncharged misconduct evidence could be used. Argued March 24—officially released August 9, 2022

The defendant was convicted of the crimes of conspiracy to sell narcotics and possession of narcotics with intent to sell. Following an investigation into possible drug sales from an apartment occupied by P, the police executed a search warrant for the apartment, where they detained the defendant and P. The defendant admitted to the police that he had narcotics on his person. The police found $267 in small bills, heroin, and crack cocaine in the defendant's front pockets. The police also found, inter alia, heroin and crack cocaine on P's person. Inside of the apartment, the police found more crack cocaine in between the couch cushions where P had been sitting, as well as drug paraphernalia and a handwritten ledger documenting narcotics sales. On appeal to the Appellate Court, that court affirmed the trial court's judgment. There- after, the defendant, on the granting of certification, appealed to this court, claiming, inter alia, that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in permitting F, a detective from another jurisdiction who had not been involved in the investigation of the defendant's drug sales, to testify regarding the defen- dant's intent to sell narcotics. Held: 1. This court declined to review the defendant's evidentiary claim regarding whether the trial court abused its discretion when it permitted F to offer expert testimony on the issue of whether the defendant had intended to sell narcotics, as that claim was not properly preserved; although defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's hypothetical question to F regarding the significance of a person in possession of the exact amount of drugs with which the police apprehended the defendant and whether those circumstances would indicate an intent to sell drugs, counsel did not object to the reformulated set of questions the prosecutor asked F, after the trial court sustained defense counsel's objection to the hypothetical, about the general behavior of drug dealers; accordingly, because defense counsel failed to object to any of the prosecutor's questions that formed the basis for the defendant's claim on appeal, counsel had no occasion to articulate the basis for a challenge to those questions with sufficient clarity to put the trial court on notice of such a challenge, and the trial court, therefore, never ruled on it. 2. The defendant did not satisfy his burden of demonstrating that the trial court's admission of the testimony of a labor department representative, R, regarding the defendant's lack of reportable wages in the year of and the year before his arrest, even if improper, constituted harmful error: R's testimony, which the state adduced to demonstrate inferentially that the defendant's income derived from drug sales rather than reportable wages, was relatively unimportant to the state's otherwise strong case against the defendant in view of the physical evidence, including cash and drugs, that the police found on the defendant's person, P's testimony about an arrangement whereby the defendant would sell drugs out of his apartment in exchange for a discount, testimony from a police officer who had been observing P's apartment about the frequency with which people visited the apartment and left shortly after arriving, expert testi- mony suggesting that the defendant's frequent use of rental cars prior to his arrest fit the typical pattern of someone engaged in the sale of narcotics, and alerts by a police dog indicating that there was a residual odor of narcotics coming from the trunk and on the door of the defen- dant's rental car; moreover, although R's brief testimony was not cumula- tive of other evidence and did not conflict with any other evidence presented, R acknowledged that the defendant may have had unreported income from sources other than drug sales, and defense counsel had the opportunity to perform a thorough cross-examination of R; further- more, the fact that R's testimony may have supported P's testimony that the defendant had sold narcotics in light of P's agreement with the state to receive a limited sentence in exchange for his testimony against the defendant did not render the admission of R's testimony harmful, as other evidence presented by the state served to bolster P's testimony, and it was well within the jury's province to find P's testimony credible notwithstanding his cooperation agreement with the state; in addition, the prosecutor referenced R's testimony only once and briefly, during his initial closing argument to the jury, and not at all during rebuttal argument; accordingly, when considered together with other evidence admitted at the defendant's trial, evidence of the defendant's lack of reportable wages in the year of and year prior to his arrest did not substantially affect the jury's verdict. Argued April 28—officially released August 16, 2022

The plaintiff employer, V Co., appealed to the trial court from the decision of the Employment Security Board of Review, which upheld the decision of an appeals referee of the Employment Security Appeals Division that a tattoo artist, S, was V Co.'s employee and that V Co. was liable under the Unemployment Compensation Act (§ 31-222 et seq.) for contributions to the state's unemployment compensation fund based on S's wages. V Co. leased retail space in a shopping mall, where it sold body jewelry and provided body piercing and body art services. Since 2013, S provided tattoo services to the customers of V Co. from a back room on V Co.'s premises. In 2016, the defendant, the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act, audited V Co. and determined that S was V Co.'s employee rather than an independent contractor, as V Co. had claimed. The appeals referee sustained that decision classifying S as an employee, finding, inter alia, that S did not pay rent to use the back room, S performed tattoo services only during store hours, which were estab- lished by V Co., and V Co. advertised on its website and Facebook page that customers could receive tattoo services at its store. Thereafter, V Co. appealed to the board of review, which concluded that V Co. had failed to satisfy any of the three prongs of the ABC test, as set forth in § 31-222 (a) (1) (B) (ii), which governs the determination of whether services performed by an individual constitute employment under the act. Specifically, the board of review determined that the tattoo services provided by S were performed within V Co.'s usual course of business, as required by part B of the ABC test, and noted that V Co. described itself on its website as a one-stop destination for piercing and tattoo services and that S was the only individual performing tattoo services for V Co. Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing V Co.'s appeal from the decision of the board of review, concluding that V Co. had failed to prove that S was not an employee for purposes of the act. On appeal to the Appellate Court, that court found substantial evidence in the record to support the finding of the board of review that the provision of tattoo services was within V Co.'s usual course of business and concluded that the trial court had correctly determined that the board's application of the statute to the facts was neither unrea- sonable nor arbitrary. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, and V Co., on the granting of certification, appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court correctly deter- mined that the board of review had not acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion in finding that tattoo services were within V Co.'s usual course of business under part B of the ABC test, as there was substantial evidence in the record to support that finding: an activity is considered to be within an enterprise's usual course of business under part B of the ABC test when the enterprise performs the activity on a regular or continuous basis, without regard to the substantiality of the activity in relation to the enterprise's other business activities, and this court declined V Co.'s request to narrow the scope of the part B analysis by precluding consideration of the specific tasks performed by the worker for the putative employer; moreover, although advertisements are not by themselves dispositive of whether an activity is within an enterprise's usual course of business, the manner in which an enterprise holds itself out to the public, including through its advertis- ing, may serve as substantial evidence of whether an activity is per- formed in the enterprise's usual course of business, and, in the present case, the record reflected that V Co. referred to itself on its website as a one-stop destination for piercing and tattoo services and used its store phone number as the number to contact for such services; furthermore, the board's finding that V Co. performed tattoo services on a regular or on a continuous basis was supported by additional evidence in the record, including evidence that tattoo services were provided only during V Co.'s store hours, V Co.'s owner previously had hired a tattoo artist and testified that he had included tattoo services as part of the business to increase revenue, and that all tattoo customers were required to execute a waiver with V Co. and would receive a receipt listing the name and contact information of V Co., rather than that of S. Argued March 31—officially released August 16, 2022

Convicted of the crimes of murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and assault in the first degree, the defendant appealed. The defendant and his cousin, A, had been driving when they stopped to pick up the defendant's friend, J. They then drove to a housing complex, where the defendant and J exited the car and shot five individuals, one of whom died. The defendant and J returned to A's car and left the scene. Because A was on probation, he wore a global positioning system (GPS) device that tracked his movement. Thereafter, the defendant and J were arrested, and their cases were consolidated and tried jointly. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion in limine seeking either the preclusion of evidence of information pertaining to the location of his cell phone or a hearing pursuant to State v. Porter (241 Conn. 57) to determine the scientific reliability of such evidence. The trial court did not rule on the defendant's motion, and he did not renew it at trial. The state never disclosed an expert witness, but, when jury selection began, the state provided the defendant with a list of witnesses, which included W, whom it identified only as a police officer. Seven days before evidence began, the state provided the defendant with W's resume and a copy of a slideshow presentation, prepared by W, that purportedly charted the location of the defendant's and J's cell phones, and A's GPS device around the time of the shooting. J filed a motion in limine to preclude W's testimony because of the state's untimely disclosure of W as an expert on cell site location data. The defendant's counsel did not file a similar motion, join J's motion, or raise any concerns regarding the untimely disclosure at the hearing on J's motion. The court denied J's motion, and, at trial, W's testimony and cell site location data showed that J, but not the defendant or A, had been near the crime scene at the time of the shooting. The defendant did not object to W's testimony or the cell site location data and did not request a Porter hearing at that time. While cross-examining W, the defendant's counsel emphasized that the data showed that the defendant had been with A in locations other than the crime scene, both before and after the shooting. After the defendant and J were convicted, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming that the trial court improperly had admitted into evidence W's testimony regarding the cell site location information without first conducting a Porter hearing, as required by this court's decision in State v. Edwards (325 Conn. 97). The Appellate Court dis- agreed and affirmed the defendant's conviction. During the pendency of the defendant's appeal to this court from the Appellate Court's judg- ment, this court reversed J's conviction on the ground that the trial court had abused its discretion when it allowed W to testify without first granting J's request for a reasonable continuance to obtain his own cell site information expert. Thereafter, this court granted the defendant's petition for certification to appeal to this court, and the defendant claimed that, even though he admittedly failed to preserve any objection to the state's untimely disclosure of W, this court should exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to grant him the same remedy as J because they were tried jointly and suffered the same harm. The defendant also claimed on appeal that this court should review the merits of his unpreserved claim that the trial court improperly had failed to conducted a Porter hearing in accordance with Edwards. Held: 1. This court declined the defendant's request to exercise its supervisory authority over the administration of justice to reverse his conviction, despite his failure to preserve any objection to the state's untimely disclosure of W as an expert witness, as the defendant and J were not similarly situated or similarly harmed by the state's untimely disclosure of W: W's testimony regarding the cell site location data was less prejudi- cial to the defendant than it was to J insofar as it did not place the defendant near the crime scene at the time of the shooting, as it did with J; moreover, W's testimony demonstrated, and the defendant's counsel emphasized during cross-examination of W, that the defendant and A were together and not at the scene of the shooting both before and after it occurred, which suggested that defense counsel may have had strategic reasons for not objecting to W's testimony; furthermore, the state's case against the defendant was strong, as multiple witnesses identified him as the shooter, and a probation officer testified that he had witnessed A pick up the defendant from his home before the shooting and the defendant arrive back home after the shooting, whereas W's testimony was central to the state's case against J, who could not be identified as the shooter by any eyewitness; accordingly, because the defendant was not similarly situated to J, it was not anomalous to treat the defendant and J differently, and fairness and justice did not require the reversal of the defendant's conviction. 2. This court declined to review the defendant's unpreserved Porter claim: the trial court never ruled on the defendant's pretrial motion in limine requesting a Porter hearing, he did not renew that request at trial, and this court recently rejected the same arguments that the defendant raised in the present case and determined that the retroactivity of the nonconstitutional evidentiary rule announced in Edwards, namely, that a Porter hearing is required to assess the scientific reliability of expert testimony concerning cell phone location information, does not relieve a defendant of his obligation to preserve such a claim; moreover, con- trary to the defendant's contention, the requirement of preservation did not frustrate judicial economy by forcing attorneys to raise any conceivable legal claim in the hope that the law would change in the future. Argued May 2—officially released August 16, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 54-1f (b)), a police officer ''shall arrest, without previ- ous complaint and warrant, any person who the officer has reasonable grounds to believe has committed or is committing a felony.'' The petitioner, who had been convicted of various drug and weapons charges, sought a writ of habeas corpus, claiming, inter alia, that his trial counsel, C, had rendered ineffective assistance. The petitioner spe- cifically alleged that C had a conflict of interest insofar as he was employed as an active duty New Haven police officer while simultane- ously representing the petitioner in criminal proceedings in the judicial district of New Britain. Before C began representing criminal defendants, he sought the advice of corporation counsel for the city of New Haven, who concluded that C's representation of criminal defendants was not inappropriate, so long as it occurred outside of the New Haven judicial district. In his habeas petition, the petitioner alleged, inter alia, that C failed to disclose his employment as a police officer to him and that, as a result of this conflict of interest, C failed to adequately cross- examine the New Britain police officers who arrested the petitioner and searched his apartment. The habeas court denied the petition, conclud- ing, inter alia, that there was no evidence that C's representation of the petitioner was directly adverse to another client or limited by C's responsibilities to the New Haven Police Department. Specifically, the court implicitly agreed with and credited C's view that his obligations as a police officer under § 54-1f (b) did not give rise to a conflict of interest when he represented criminal defendants in locales other than New Haven. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a petition for certification to appeal, which the habeas court denied, and the petitioner appealed to the Appellate Court, which dismissed the petitioner's appeal. On the granting of certification, the petitioner appealed to this court. Held: 1. This court declined the respondent's invitation to revisit the question of which standard applies to ineffective assistance of counsel claims based on personal conflicts of interest that do not involve the concurrent representation of multiple clients: because the petitioner could not pre- vail under the standard currently followed by this court, as articulated in Cuyler v. Sullivan (446 U.S. 335), which requires a petitioner to establish, inter alia, that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected defense counsel's performance, it was not necessary for this court to consider whether it should instead follow the majority of federal courts of appeals that have concluded that the more stringent standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington (466 U.S. 668), which requires a petitioner to establish that there is a reasonable probability that, but for the attorney's deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different, applies in habeas cases involving purely personal conflicts of interest. 2. The petitioner could not prevail on his claim that it is a per se conflict of interest for an individual to simultaneously serve as a Connecticut police officer and to represent a criminal defendant, even if the alleged crimes were committed, investigated, and prosecuted outside of the city or town in which the officer serves: although the use of the phrase ''shall arrest'' in § 54-1f (b) suggested, as the petitioner argued, that police officers have a mandatory and nondiscretionary duty to arrest all suspected felons under all circumstances, regardless of when or where the suspected crime was committed, the petitioner's interpreta- tion was not the only plausible reading of the statutory language; more- over, adopting the petitioner's interpretation of § 54-1f (b) would lead to absurd and unworkable results insofar as treating the statute as mandatory would deprive police officers of the necessary discretion as to whether and when to arrest a suspected felon and would require them to make arrests, even when the suspected crime was committed long ago, outside of the statute of limitations, or outside of the officer's jurisdiction; accordingly, this court concluded that, although § 54-1f (b) gives patrolling officers the authority to arrest suspected felons they encounter, it does not require off duty officers, such as C, to arrest their clients whenever they suspect that those clients may have committed other crimes, even outside of the officer's jurisdiction; nevertheless, because the petitioner raised a colorable question of statutory interpreta- tion that previously had not been directly addressed by the appellate courts of this state, this court concluded that the habeas court had abused its discretion in denying the petition for certification to appeal, and, accordingly, the Appellate Court improperly dismissed the petition- er's appeal from that denial. 3. There was no merit to the petitioner's claim that C's undisclosed status as a police officer became an actual conflict of interest during the petitioner's criminal trial insofar as it led C to hold back when cross- examining other police officers; the habeas court thoroughly analyzed the petitioner's claims of inadequate cross-examination and found them to be without merit, the Appellate Court reviewed the petitioner's chal- lenges to the findings and conclusions of the habeas court and found them to be meritless, and this court saw no reason to second-guess the habeas court's determination that there was no constitutionally relevant actual conflict of interest because the petitioner was unable to establish prejudice under Sullivan by showing that C had failed to pursue some plausible, alternative defense strategy or tactic that was inherently in conflict with or not undertaken due to C's other loyalties; nevertheless, this court emphasized that, although the petitioner did not demonstrate an actual conflict of interest, it did not condone C's failure to disclose to the petitioner that he was also employed as a police officer or C's decision to mislead the Office of the Chief Public Defender by vaguely listing his employment with New Haven as a ''municipal employee,'' rather than as a police officer, on his application for a special public defender contract, which were unbecoming of an officer of the court. (Two justices concurring in one opinion) Argued December 17, 2021—officially released August 16, 2022

Convicted of the crimes of sexual assault in the first degree, sexual assault in the fourth degree, and risk of injury to a child in connection with the alleged sexual abuse of the minor victim, the defendant appealed. The sexual abuse allegedly occurred when the defendant was living in the same condominium complex as the victim and her family. The original information and the long form substitute information, the latter of which was filed three weeks before the start of evidence, both alleged that the abuse occurred in 2010 or 2011, when the victim was in the fifth grade, which was consistent with the victim's sworn statement to the police. At trial, however, the victim testified that the alleged abuse occurred in 2008 or 2009, when she was in the third grade. Thereafter, the defense moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the alleged offenses could not have occurred in the time frame alleged in the long form information because the defendant did not live in the condominium complex at that time. In response, the state moved to amend its information to allege that the incidents of abuse had occurred in 2008 or 2009, consistent with the victim's testimony. Defense counsel objected, arguing that the state had failed to show good cause for the late amendment, as required by the applicable rule of practice (§ 36- 18), insofar as the prosecutor admitted to the court that the state had become aware two to four weeks before the start of trial, when preparing the victim for her court appearance, that the time frame alleged in the information was inaccurate and that the alleged incidents of abuse could not have occurred in 2010 or 2011. Defense counsel also argued that the defendant would be prejudiced by the late amendment because the defendant's entire defense was based on the fact that he did not live in the condominium complex in 2010 or 2011. The trial court granted the state's motion to amend its information, determining that there was good cause for the late amendment, in part because of the victim's young age. The Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of conviction, concluding that the trial court had not abused its discretion when it found that good cause existed to permit the state to amend its information after the start of trial and that the defendant had not been prejudiced by the late amendment. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly con- cluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion in permitting the state to amend its information after the start of trial on the ground that good cause existed for the late amendment, and, accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed, and the case was remanded with direction to reverse the judgment of conviction and to remand for a new trial: although Connecticut courts routinely have allowed the state to amend its information in light of a minor victim's testimony at trial when the state could not have reasonably anticipated a change in the victim's testimony or when the state experienced some unforeseeable difficulty in limiting the time frame in question before trial, in the present case, the state became aware, two to four weeks prior to trial, that the time frame alleged in its information was inaccurate or incomplete, the state knew, prior to the start of trial, that the defendant did not live in the condominium complex in 2010 or 2011, and, therefore, that the abuse must have occurred before 2009, when the defendant moved out of the condominium complex, and the state failed to act on that knowledge; moreover, although the victim's trial testimony that the abuse occurred when she was in the third grade may have alleged a narrower time frame than the state anticipated prior to trial, this addi- tional degree of specificity did not obviate the state's duty to amend its information before trial to provide the defendant with the more accurate information in its possession, and the focus on the victim's young age and the general deficiencies in the testimony of minor victims regarding dates distracted from the central question of whether the state had good cause to amend its information after the start of trial, even though it first became aware weeks before the defendant's trial that the time frame alleged in the information was inaccurate; furthermore, although the timing of the alleged abuse was not a material ingredient of the charged offenses and the defendant did not assert an alibi defense, the defendant was prejudiced by the late amendment to the information because that timing was a material factor in the defendant's theory of defense, as a review of the record, including defense counsel's cross- examination of various witnesses and his focus on the victim's conflict- ing accounts of the timing of the alleged abuse, confirmed that the defendant's defense was predicated on the fact that he did not live in the condominium complex in 2010 or 2011 and that it was impossible for him to have been there at that time, the amendment to the information effectively precluded him from asserting that defense, and the record suggested that the defendant would likely have presented a different defense if the amendment to the information had been made prior to trial. Argued March 29—officially released August 18, 2022

Pursuant to statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 14-227b (i) (1)), the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles shall suspend, for a period of forty-five days, the motor vehicle operator's license of a person against whom a decision was issued concerning, inter alia, a refusal to submit to a blood, breath or urine test to determine sobriety, and, as a condition for the restoration of that license, ''such person shall be required to install an ignition interlock device on each motor vehicle owned or operated by such person and, upon such restoration, be prohibited from operating a motor vehicle unless such motor vehicle is equipped with a functioning, approved ignition interlock device'' for a specified period of time. Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of the crime of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license in violation of the applicable statute (§ 14-215 (c) (1)), the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court. The defendant had been arrested and charged with operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and her license was suspended for forty-five days pursuant to § 14-227b (i) (1) as a result of her refusal to take a chemical alcohol test. Two days after the forty-five day license suspension period lapsed, the defendant allegedly struck another vehicle while operating a motor vehicle that did not have an ignition interlock device installed in it. As a result of that incident, the defendant was charged in the present case with, inter alia, operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license. The defendant moved to dismiss that charge on the ground that she could not have violated § 14- 215 (c) (1) because the forty-five day license suspension period ended two days before the incident. The trial court disagreed, concluding that the installation of an ignition interlock device is a mandatory statutory requirement for the restoration of a license that has been suspended under § 14-227b and that the defendant's suspended license was not restored until she had an ignition interlock device installed in her vehicle approximately one month after the incident. On appeal to the Appellate Court from the judgment of conviction, that court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding, on the basis of its interpretation of the relevant statutes, that the defendant's license remained suspended fol- lowing the forty-five day statutory period until she installed the ignition interlock device because § 14-227b (i) (1) mandates the installation of such a device in any motor vehicle operated by a person whose license has been suspended under the statute before the restoration of her license and does not contemplate an interim period during which such person may lawfully operate a motor vehicle without installing such a device. In reaching its decision, the Appellate Court determined that State v. Jacobson (31 Conn. App. 797), and State v. Cook (36 Conn. App. 710), on which the defendant relied, were not applicable to the present case because they were decided prior to certain amendments to the relevant statutes that rendered the analysis in those cases inapposite. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that § 14-227b (i) (1) extends the suspension of a person's license beyond the specified forty-five day period until the motor vehicle operator subject to the suspension has installed an ignition interlock device, and, accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed insofar as that court upheld the defendant's conviction of operating a motor vehicle with a suspended license, and the case was remanded with direction to reverse the judgment of conviction and to render judgment dismissing the infor- mation: this court concluded, after a review of the text of § 14-227b (i) (1) and its relationship to other relevant statutes, that the statute clearly and unambiguously imposes a forty-five day license suspension period, after which the operator's license is no longer ''under suspension'' for purposes of § 14-215 (c) (1), the plain language of § 14-227b (i) (1) having indicating that the legislature made the installation of an ignition interlock device a prerequisite for the restoration of the operator's license but not for the expiration of the suspension period; moreover, this court, in reading the statute (§ 14-215b) setting forth the penalties for operating a motor vehicle after the expiration of a suspension period and without obtaining reinstatement and § 14-227b (i) (1) together, con- cluded that the completion of the forty-five day suspension period is necessary, but not a condition, for the restoration of an operator's license under § 14-227b (i) (1) and is separate and distinct from the additional restoration precondition that the operator install an ignition interlock device; furthermore, the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that Jacobson and Cook were inapplicable to, and controlling of, the statutory interpretation issue in the present case on the ground that the versions of the relevant statutes at issue in those cases predated statutory amend- ments that added an ignition interlock device requirement as a condition for license restoration, as the courts in both of those cases based their decisions on the fixed, unqualified language limiting the duration of the statutory suspension periods and concluded that, in the absence of express statutory language to the contrary, requirements for license restoration do not concurrently operate as preconditions for the termina- tion of a license suspension period, and the rationale in Jacobson and Cook was not rendered obsolete by virtue of the statutory amendments, as the versions of the statutes applicable to the present case still provided a fixed, unqualified license suspension period; in addition, contrary to the Appellate Court's conclusion that the defendant's interpretation of § 14-227b (i) (1) would yield an absurd result because a person whose license has been suspended pursuant to that statute would have an incentive not to install an ignition interlock device and thereby complete the restoration process in order to avoid harsher penalties, a related statute ((Rev. to 2017) § 14-227k (a)) not only prohibits the exact conduct that the Appellate Court feared would be incentivized, namely, the opera- tion of a motor vehicle without an ignition interlock device by an individ- ual who is subject to the provisions of § 14-227b (i) (1), but also imposes the same penalties for a violation of its provisions as § 14-215 (c) (1), and, although certain regulations adopted by the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles that implement the provisions of § 14-227b supported the Appel- late Court's interpretation of the statue, those regulations were entitled to no deference because the statute unambiguously limits the suspension period to forty-five days, and an agency's interpretation of a statute is entitled to deference only when, inter alia, the statute is ambiguous. Argued February 23—officially released August 23, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 52-557n (a) (2) (B)) and the common law of this state, respectively, municipalities and their employees enjoy qualified immunity from liability for their negligent acts or omissions in the perfor- mance of duties that require the exercise of judgment or discretion. The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants, the city of Hartford and one of its police officers, K, in connection with injuries the plaintiff sustained when a motorcycle on which he was riding was struck from behind by K's unmarked police vehicle. K's vehicle, known as a ''soft car,'' lacked flashing or revolving lights and was indiscernible from an ordinary civilian vehicle. While driving his vehicle, K was instructed to surveil a group of motorcycles and quads riding through the city streets. K, who was traveling between forty and fifty miles per hour in a twenty-five mile per hour zone, crossed the street's center line and proceeded to travel north in the southbound lane, where the front of his vehicle struck the back tire of the plaintiff's motorcycle, causing the plaintiff to crash and sustain serious injuries. The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that K's negligence had caused his injuries and that the city was liable pursuant to § 52-557n (a) (1) (A) for the negligent acts of K and was required to indemnify K pursuant to the municipal indemnification statute (§ 7-465). Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that K had violated a ministerial duty imposed by the motor vehicle statutes ((Rev. to 2013) §§ 14-218a and 14-240) that govern speed on local road- ways and following distances, respectively, and the statute ((Rev. to 2013) § 14-230) that requires vehicles to be driven on the right. The defendants asserted various special defenses, including governmental immunity pursuant to the common law and § 52-557n (a) (2) (B). After a trial, the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff on his negligence claim, and the court then heard argument on the issue of governmental immunity, which had been reserved for the court's decision. The court ultimately set aside the verdict on the negligence count, concluding that governmental immunity was applicable to K's conduct because his surveillance while driving involved a discretionary, rather than a ministerial, police activity. Accordingly, the court also concluded that there was no cognizable claim against the city for indemnification under § 7-465, and it rendered judgment for the defendants. On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision to set aside the verdict with respect to the negligence claim, concluding that it was barred by governmental immunity because K was engaged in discretionary conduct while surveilling the plaintiff. The Appellate Court also rejected the plaintiff's argument that K had a ministerial duty to comply with the motor vehicle statutes while operating his vehicle, insofar as the statute (§ 14-283) governing the operation of emergency vehicles allows the police to disregard motor vehicle statutes only when responding to an emergency call or during pursuits but not during surveillance operations. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the defendants were entitled to governmental immunity pursuant to the common law and § 52-557n (a) (2) (B) in connection with the plaintiff's negligence claim, as the motor vehicle statutes setting forth the rules of the road imposed numerous ministerial duties that K violated in the operation of his vehi- cle, and, accordingly, this court reversed in part the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded the case with direction to reverse that part of the trial court's judgment setting aside the verdict and to remand the case to the trial court with direction to, inter alia, reinstate the jury's verdict and to render judgment for the plaintiff on the count of his complaint seeking indemnification from the city: because the statute was silent and was, therefore, ambiguous with respect to whether, or the extent to which, a municipal employee's manner of driving is consid- ered a discretionary act for purposes of governmental immunity under § 52-557n (a) (2) (B), this court reviewed extratextual sources, particu- larly the statute's legislative history, which demonstrated the legisla- ture's understanding that negligence in the operation of motor vehicles was not intended to be shielded by governmental immunity, either before or after the passage of § 52-557n, and that understanding was implicitly confirmed by a nearly contemporaneous decision of this court holding that a municipality is liable for its employee's negligent operation of an emergency vehicle engaged in a high-speed police pursuit and rejecting a claim of blanket immunity under § 14-283; moreover, in the absence of any indication in the text or legislative history of § 52-557n that the legislature intended to alter or abolish the existing liability regime under the common law and related indemnification statutes, this court con- cluded that the legislature understood the operation of a motor vehicle in a nonemergency situation to be a ministerial act, and that conclusion was consistent with the fact that the operation of a motor vehicle is a highly regulated activity governed by a panoply of state motor vehicle statutes; furthermore, a review of the pertinent motor vehicle statutes, namely, §§ 14-218a, 14-230 and 14-240, established that those statutes impose ministerial duties on municipal employees who are operating a motor vehicle, outside of the limited shelter provided by § 14-283 for the operators of emergency vehicles in certain discrete circumstances, as the former statutes contain mandatory language that limits discretion in the performance of the mandatory act and does not call for the kind of open-ended good professional judgment that is the hallmark of discretionary act immunity; in the present case, although the decision to use the soft car to surveil the plaintiff was discretionary, once that decision was made, K had a ministerial duty and was legally bound to comply with the rules of the road, unless he was operating his vehicle as an emergency vehicle within the meaning of § 14-283, which the defendants conceded that he was not. Argued December 15, 2021—officially released August 30, 2022

Convicted, on a conditional plea of nolo contendere, of the crime of robbery in the first degree, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claim- ing that his prosecution was time barred by the applicable five year statute of limitations ((Rev. to 2017) § 54-193 (b)) because, although the warrant for his arrest was issued two weeks before the expiration of the limitation period set forth in § 54-193 (b), it was executed one week after its expiration. The defendant had filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court denied, finding that, because there was at least some evidence that the state had made efforts to execute the warrant before the expiration of the limitation period, the delay in the execution of the warrant was reasonable. At the hearing on that motion, the prosecutor relied on a stipulation of facts setting forth a relevant chronology of events. The stipulation provided that, while incarcerated on unrelated charges in early November, 2018, the defendant confessed to his involve- ment in the robbery, which occurred on November 29, 2013. On Novem- ber 19, 2018, the police obtained a signed warrant for the defendant's arrest and requested that the Office of the State's Attorney prepare an application for a writ of habeas corpus to have the defendant transported from the correctional facility at which he was incarcerated to the trial court, where he could be served with the warrant. The Office of the State's Attorney prepared the application for a writ of habeas corpus on November 21, 2018, but it was not signed until November 27, 2018. Thereafter, on December 6, 2018, the defendant was transported to court, where he was served with the warrant. The prosecutor adduced no additional evidence at the hearing, aside from the arrest warrant and the writ of habeas corpus. When the trial court asked the prosecutor to explain the three week delay between the issuance and execution of the arrest warrant, he stated that the warrant was not picked up until two days after it was signed by the judge and that the Thanksgiving holiday took place during the period between when the application for the writ of habeas corpus was prepared and signed. He also explained that the procedure for transporting an inmate to court involves various factors, including staff availability, limits on how many inmates can be transported on a given day, and coordination among various state agencies, such that a one week delay between the signing of a writ of habeas corpus and the transport of an inmate was not unusual. On appeal to the Appellate Court from the denial of the defendant's motion to dismiss, that court affirmed, concluding that the trial court had cor- rectly determined that there was sufficient evidence to establish that the delay in the service of the arrest warrant after the expiration of the statute of limitations was reasonable. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court. Held that the state failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that it acted with due diligence in its efforts to execute the arrest warrant within the limitation period without unrea- sonable delay, and, accordingly, the judgment of the Appellate Court was reversed and the case was remanded with direction to reverse the trial court's judgment and to order the trial court to grant the defendant's motion to dismiss: once a defendant demonstrates his nonelusiveness and his availability for arrest during the time period between the issuance and the execution of a warrant, the burden shifts to the state to present evidence of its due diligence and reasonable efforts in executing the warrant, and this court clarified that, to satisfy that burden, the state must produce admissible evidence to explain the reasonableness of the delay and to demonstrate its due diligence, which does not include the unsworn factual representations of counsel, insofar as such assertions cannot be tested in the crucible of cross-examination; in the present case, the parties did not dispute that the defendant met his burden of demonstrating his availability for arrest during the statutory period and, therefore, that the burden shifted to the state to present evidence of its due diligence in executing the warrant; moreover, the stipulation on which the state relied was an unadorned chronology of events that, despite reflecting a three week delay between the issuance and execution of the arrest warrant, did not reveal the reasons for the various delays or explain how the efforts undertaken to execute the warrant reflected the state's due diligence, no evidence was presented at the hearing to establish the facts underlying the prosecutor's assertions that the delay was caused by a holiday and general logistical factors affecting the transportation of inmates, and the prosecutor could not explain why the state did not try to arrange for the transportation of the defendant before the expiration of the statute of limitations. (One justice concurring separately; three justices dissenting in one opinion) Argued February 17—officially released August 30, 2022

Convicted of the crimes of murder and carrying a dangerous weapon in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant had been staying with his friend L in L's apartment. On the evening of the murder, the victim, J, and another individual were consuming alcohol and drugs in J's apartment, which was on the floor above L's apartment. At some point that evening, the defendant, who was highly intoxicated, entered J's apartment and began arguing with the victim. J then expelled both men from her apartment. Soon thereafter, J learned that the victim had been in a fight, and she immediately went to the floor on which L's apartment was, where she found the victim, who had been stabbed multiple times. The police subsequently arrived at the scene, and, while they were attending to the victim, the defendant emerged from L's apartment and started kick- ing the victim and yelling. During a search of L's apartment, the police found a knife on the kitchen floor lying next to a pool of blood. It was later determined that the knife had both the victim's and the defendant's DNA on it. Following the incident, the police interviewed the defendant on two occasions. Over the course of those interviews, the defendant repeatedly changed his version of the events, stating first that he did not know the victim, but later stating that he fought with the victim, whom he knew, after confronting him about the victim's alleged sexual assault of J's daughter. The defendant also stated that he was attacked by the victim and his ''crew,'' forcing him to fight with up to ten individuals at once. At trial, L testified that, after the defendant returned to L's apartment on the evening of the murder, he heard the defendant rummag- ing through a drawer in the kitchen and then saw him leave the apartment and engage in a physical altercation with the victim on the fire escape landing outside of L's apartment. L further testified that, when the victim collapsed, the defendant reentered L's apartment, and L observed that the defendant was holding a knife from the kitchen drawer. During closing argument, the prosecutor argued that the evidence overwhelm- ingly established the defendant's guilt, despite some discrepancies between the testimony of certain witnesses, and that the jury could infer that L's prior statements to the police, which L had given on the night of the victim's murder but were not in evidence, were consistent with his trial testimony because, otherwise, the defense would have used the statements to impeach him, as it had with respect to the prior statements of two of the state's other witnesses. Defense counsel did not object to these remarks by the prosecutor. During his closing argument, defense counsel argued that the state had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the defendant, as opposed to some other person, who murdered the victim and that the jury should not credit L's testimony because, inter alia, he had entered into a cooperation agreement with the state. During his rebuttal argument, the prosecutor referred to Occam's razor, the principle that the simplest of competing theories should be preferred over more complex ones, in arguing that the jury should credit the state's simple, straightforward version of events rather than the defendant's unreal, complex story. Defense coun- sel did not object to this reference either. On appeal, the defendant claimed that he was deprived of his due process right to a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor's allegedly improper remarks during closing and rebuttal arguments. Held that the defendant could not prevail on his claim that the prosecutor's references during closing argument to L's prior statements to the police and during rebuttal argument to Occam's razor constituted prosecutorial impropriety that deprived the defendant of his right to a fair trial: the prosecutor did not improperly reference facts not in evidence or vouch for L's credibility by inviting the jury to infer that L's prior statements to the police were consistent with his trial testimony, as L and two other witnesses testified that L had given statements to the police, and the jury was aware that certain other state witnesses had given statements to the police and that the defense had used their statements to discredit them, and, therefore, the prosecutor merely was asking the jurors to infer from evidence properly before them, and from their personal experience as jurors in this case, that, if L had changed his story as a result of his cooperation agreement, the defense could and would have used his prior statements to discredit him; moreover, the prosecutor's reference to Occam's razor did not improperly dilute the state's burden of proof or otherwise mislead the jury as to the nature of that burden, as it was used as a rhetorical device in response to defense counsel's closing argument that the jury must choose between the state's and the defendant's competing versions of events, and nothing in the prosecutor's remarks expressly or implicitly suggested to the jurors that they must choose the simpler version of events, even if they did not find it proven beyond a reasonable doubt; furthermore, even if the prosecutor's remarks were improper, there was no possibility that they deprived the defendant of a fair trial, as each of the alleged improprieties occurred only once, neither was perceived by defense counsel as being so severe as to warrant an objection or a request for curative measures, this court did not perceive them as being severe, the state's case was strong, and the trial court's instructions pertaining to the jurors' exclusive role as the arbiters of credibility, the state's burden of proof, and the principle that jurors must confine themselves to the evidence in the record were more than adequate to counteract any harm resulting from the alleged improprieties. Argued May 5—officially released August 30, 2022

Convicted of the crimes of murder and criminal possession of a firearm in connection with the death of his wife, Y, the defendant appealed to this court. The police had reported to the defendant's apartment, where he lived with Y and their two year old daughter, P, in response to a 911 call concerning a domestic disturbance. Upon entering the apartment, the police found the body of Y, who had died from multiple gunshot wounds to her head, as well as narcotics, packaging materials, and cash. The police thereafter located P in Brooklyn, New York, at the home of the defendant's sister, who indicated that the defendant had dropped off P the morning after Y's murder. The defendant was found in Massa- chusetts and arrested several days later. Following his arrest, the defen- dant was advised of and exercised his right to remain silent pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436). Before trial, the state filed notice of its intent to introduce evidence of the defendant's uncharged miscon- duct, including the testimony of J, an ex-girlfriend of Y with whom Y had recently reunited, for the purpose of demonstrating the defendant's intent and identity. The defendant moved to exclude J's testimony, but the trial court ultimately concluded that it was relevant and not unduly prejudicial. At trial, J testified about two incidents that occurred a few months before Y's murder, when the defendant threatened J with a firearm at a funeral and when the defendant broke down the door to J's apartment while J and Y were in bed together. The state also elicited testimony from T, who was a drug runner for the defendant. T testified that he had been with the defendant in a car owned by T's mother on the day of Y's murder and that the defendant had texted the following morning asking him to look up ''[h]ow much time do you get.'' The defendant testified in his own defense at trial. He admitted that he was a drug dealer and stated that, when he returned to his apartment on the night of the murder, he found Y dead and a large amount of cash and a certain quantity of heroin missing. The defendant claimed that he fled with P to his sister's home in Brooklyn because he feared the perpetrators of the purported robbery. He also testified that T picked him up in Brooklyn and drove him to New London, where he stayed for two days before going to Massachusetts. During closing arguments, which commenced later in the day on which the defendant testified, the prosecutor sought to cast doubt on the credibility of the defendant's testimony by emphasizing the defendant's delay in telling his version of events. The prosecutor repeated that ''today'' or ''this morning'' at trial was the ''first time'' the defendant had shared his story and argued that, if Y's murder was the result of a botched robbery, as the defendant claimed, common sense would have compelled the defendant to share that information with the police ''closer to the time of the crime'' in order to assist with the investigation. The prosecutor also stated during rebuttal argument that, in comparison to the months long delay it took J to report the incident at the funeral, ''[t]here was a much bigger delay in hearing [from the defendant] about the missing large quantity of money.'' Defense counsel objected to the prosecutor's statements regarding the defendant's silence, but the court overruled the objection. After the defendant was found guilty, defense counsel moved for a new trial, claiming that the prosecutor had violated the defendant's right to due process by commenting on his post-Miranda silence. The court denied that motion, concluding that the prosecutor's statements referred to the defendant's prearrest silence, which is permissible. Held: 1. The evidence was sufficient to satisfy the state's burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had committed the crimes of murder and criminal possession of a firearm: although there was no direct evidence linking the defendant to Y's murder, the cumulative impact of the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support a reason- able inference that it was the defendant who murdered Y with a firearm insofar as that evidence revealed that his marriage with Y was disinteg- rating due to his own extramarital affairs and Y's romantic relationship with J, that the defendant previously had threatened to kill Y and had threatened J with a gun, and, therefore, that the defendant had a motive to murder Y and had expressed a willingness to take action consistent with that motive; moreover, the defendant's own testimony placed him at the scene of the murder less than one hour before the 911 call, the trier of fact was not required to credit the defendant's testimony that Y was dead when he arrived at the apartment, particularly because it was inconsistent with the timeline of events established by the 911 call and certain video surveillance footage that was admitted at trial, and it was undisputed that the defendant was a drug dealer who routinely possessed large quantities of cash and narcotics, which permitted a reasonable inference that the defendant possessed a firearm and had the means and opportunity to kill Y with such a weapon; furthermore, the defendant's flight from the scene of Y's murder without calling the police or seeking medical assistance for Y, certain incriminatory statements that he made indicating that he was ''sorry'' and ''on the run,'' as well as his inquiry to T regarding ''[h]ow much time do you get,'' constituted indirect evidence of the defendant's guilt. 2. The prosecutor improperly commented on the defendant's post-Miranda silence, in violation of the defendant's due process right to a fair trial, and, accordingly, the judgment of conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial: the state conceded that the prosecutor's comment during rebuttal argument regarding the significant ''delay in hearing [from the defendant] about the missing large quantity of money'' was improper because its context revealed that it referred both to the defendant's pre-Miranda and post-Miranda silence, and the prosecu- tor's other references to the defendant's silence during closing argument were ambiguous because they referred generally to the defendant's delay in disclosing his version of events and could reasonably have been understood to include both the four days of pre-Miranda silence between the murder and the defendant's arrest and the lengthier post- Miranda period between his arrest and trial; moreover, this court adopted a contextualized approach for the purpose of construing such ambiguous prosecutorial remarks, pursuant to which the court must analyze whether the language used by the prosecutor was manifestly intended to be, or was of such a character that the jury would naturally and necessarily take it to be, a comment on the defendant's post- Miranda silence, and pursuant to which the defendant bears the initial burden of proving an impermissible comment on his post-Miranda silence, after which the state bears the burden of demonstrating that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; in the present case, viewing the prosecutor's remarks in the context in which they were made, the jury naturally and necessarily would have construed them to refer to both the defendant's pre-Miranda silence, insofar as the comments focused on the defendant's flight to Brooklyn, New London, and Massachusetts before his arrest, and his post-Miranda silence, inso- far as the prosecutor repeatedly emphasized that ''today'' or ''this morn- ing'' was the ''first time'' the defendant told his story; furthermore, the prosecutor emphasized the recent nature of the defendant's disclosure by arguing that the police had not investigated Y's death as a botched robbery because, between the date of the murder and the date the defendant testified, he never informed the police that a robbery occurred, and, thus, the prosecutor's remarks encompassed the full continuum of the defendant's pre-Miranda and post-Miranda silence, and the natural and necessary impact of the prosecutor's statements during initial clos- ing argument was reinforced by the admittedly improper comment dur- ing rebuttal argument when the prosecutor expressly noted that the defendant's silence far exceeded four months; in addition, the state failed to satisfy its burden of demonstrating that the prosecutor's improper remarks were harmless, as it failed to explain how the prosecutor's repeated emphasis on the defendant's post-Miranda silence during ini- tial closing argument, which struck at the jugular of the defendant's testimony that Y was killed during a botched robbery, was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. 3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting J's testimony regarding the funeral incident as evidence of the defendant's uncharged misconduct on the ground that the probative value of that evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect: J's testimony regarding her relationship with Y and the defendant's threatening conduct clearly was relevant to the issue of the defendant's motive to commit the crimes of conviction, as the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant blamed the breakdown of his marriage on Y's relationship with J, that he was willing to resort to violence to end their relationship, and that his willingness to use violence extended to Y herself, especially in light of evidence that the defendant had threatened to kill Y and that Y had called the police after the defendant burst in on her and J in bed together; moreover, the uncharged misconduct evidence was not unduly prejudicial, as the defendant's threatening conduct toward J at the funeral was less severe than the conduct that formed the basis for his conviction of Y's murder and, therefore, was unlikely to unduly arouse the emotions of the jurors; furthermore, the trial court instructed the jury that its use of J's testimony regarding the funeral incident was limited to showing or establishing the motive for the commission of the charged crimes, which minimized any prejudicial effect that the evidence otherwise may have had. Argued May 5—officially released September 2, 2022

Pursuant to statute (§ 46a-58 (a)), ''[i]t shall be a discriminatory practice . . . for any person to subject . . . any other person to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities, secured or protected by the . . . laws of this state or of the United States, on account of . . . mental disability [or] physical disability . . . .'' Pursuant further to statute (§ 46a-64 (a) (1)), ''[i]t shall be a discriminatory practice . . . [t]o deny any person within the jurisdiction of this state full and equal accommodations in any place of public accommodation . . . because of . . . intellectual disability [or] mental disability . . . .'' The defendant M filed a complaint with the named defendant, the Commis- sion on Human Rights and Opportunities, on behalf of his minor child, A, alleging that the plaintiff board of education had discriminated against A on the basis of A's mental disability. A, who had been diagnosed with several mental and cognitive disorders, attended a public magnet school, where he initially was enrolled as a special education student who was entitled to an individualized education plan and special accommodation services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.). The school subsequently determined, against the wishes of A's parents, that A would no longer be designated as a special education student under the IDEA. Thereafter, A sustained a concussion during an incident at school, and A's parents kept A out of school until he was symptom free on the basis of the recommendation of A's physician. During A's absence, the board sent a habitual truancy notice to A's parents and held a planning and placement team meeting, which was attended by M and various representatives of the board, among other individuals, to discuss A's eligibility for special education services. At that meeting, M attempted to offer a letter from A's physician regarding A's post-concussion syndrome, but the board declined to accept it because it was purportedly illegible and undated. Immediately thereafter, a representative of the board initiated A's withdrawal from the magnet school. M alleged in his complaint that the board had discrimi- nated against A in violation of § 46a-64 (a) (1) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.), as enforced by § 46a-58 (a). After a hearing before the commission, a human rights referee concluded, inter alia, that a public school is a place of public accommodation for purposes of § 46a-64 and that the board unlawfully had discriminated against A by withdrawing him from school on the basis of his disability. The board filed an administrative appeal with the trial court, which remanded the case for a determination of whether the board had violated the ADA. On remand, the board claimed that the complaint was actually seeking relief for the denial of a free and appropriate public education under the IDEA and that M had failed to exhaust his administrative remedies for an IDEA violation before seeking relief pursuant to the ADA. The referee noted that the board had not raised that claim previously but concluded that M's complaint did not raise a free and appropriate education claim. The referee also concluded that A was physically disabled under the ADA due to his post-concussion syndrome and that the board had violated § 46a-58 (a) by unilaterally withdrawing him from school on the basis of that disability. The trial court upheld the decision of the referee. The court rejected the board's claims that the commission lacked subject matter jurisdiction to adjudi- cate claims brought pursuant to the ADA and that it lacked jurisdiction over M's complaint on the ground that M failed to exhaust his remedies pursuant to the IDEA. The court also declined to consider the board's claim that the referee incorrectly determined that a public school is a place of public accommodation because the board did not raise that issue before the referee. The trial court rendered judgment dismissing the board's appeal, from which the board appealed. Held: 1. The board could not prevail on its claim that the trial court incorrectly determined that the commission had subject matter jurisdiction to adju- dicate the claim that the board violated the ADA and to identify ADA violations for purposes of determining whether § 46a-58 (a) had been violated; the board conceded at oral argument before this court that its claim was controlled by this court's recent conclusion in Connecticut Judicial Branch v. Gilbert (343 Conn. 90), made in the context of a discrimination claim predicated on a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.), that the language of § 46a-58 (a) unambiguously confers on the commission the authority to identify violations of federal civil rights laws for the purpose of determining whether state law has been violated and that, when the commission finds a violation of federal antidiscrimination law as a factual predicate to a violation of § 46a-58 (a), it does so as a matter of state law. 2. The trial court correctly determined that M was not required to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing the complaint with the commis- sion on A's behalf: although the board failed to raise the exhaustion issue in the proceedings before the referee, that claim implicated the commission's subject matter jurisdiction, an issue that could be raised at any time, and, therefore, that issue properly was before the trial court and this court; moreover, although a party is required to exhaust his or her available administrative remedies provided by state law (§ 10-76h) before he or she may file a civil action seeking relief for the denial of a free and appropriate public education, M's complaint did not seek such relief, as the claims therein could have been brought outside of the school setting, and the fact that A was unable to take advantage of the educational services at the magnet school as a result of the board's unilateral actions did not convert M's claim for discrimination on the basis of A's disability into a claim for a denial of a free and appropriate education; furthermore, the history of the proceedings in the present case bolstered this court's conclusion that the complaint did not seek relief for the denial of a free and appropriate education, as A's parents never invoked formal procedures pursuant to § 10-76h, they did not ask the referee during the proceedings on the complaint to order the board to reenroll A at the magnet school, to designate him as a special education student, or to provide him with appropriate educational services, and there was no reason to believe that they wanted or would be entitled to such relief in light of the fact that A had since been enrolled in a school in another district, where he was receiving a free and appro- priate education. 3. The board's claim that the referee incorrectly determined that a public school is a place of public accommodation pursuant to § 46a-64 did not implicate the commission's subject matter jurisdiction and, therefore, was not reviewable: contrary to the board's contention that its claim could be raised at any time because it implicated the board's subject matter jurisdiction, the claim regarding the proper interpretation of the phrase ''place of public accommodation'' alleged that the commission had failed to establish an element of a statutory remedy, which impli- cated the commission's statutory authority and the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the commission's jurisdiction, and, in the present case, the claim that M raised in his complaint, that the board had violated § 46a-64 by discriminating against A on the basis of his disabilities in a place of public accommodation, was within the class of claims that the commission has authority or competence to decide. Argued April 27—officially released September 6, 2022

Pursuant to the common law of this state, communications made in the course of and in furtherance of administrative proceedings that are quasi-judicial in nature are absolutely privileged. Pursuant further to Kelley v. Bonney (221 Conn. 549), in determining whether an administrative proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature, a court may consider whether the body or entity conducting the proceeding has the discretion to apply the law to the facts and the authority (1) to exercise judgment and discretion, (2) to hear and determine or to ascertain facts and decide, (3) to make binding orders and judgments, (4) to affect the personal or property rights of private persons, (5) to examine witnesses and to hear the litigation of the issues, and (6) to enforce decisions or to impose penalties. The plaintiff sought to recover damages for, inter alia, defamation in connec- tion with statements that the defendant had made about the plaintiff at a public hearing before a town planning and zoning commission in connection with the plaintiff's application for a special permit to con- struct a new house and to install a new sewer line on his property. At the hearing, the defendant expressed her concerns regarding the plaintiff's application, stating, inter alia, that the plaintiff had not been trustworthy in prior dealings involving his application, that he had ''a serious criminal past,'' and that he had paid more than $40 million in fines to the federal agency charged with enforcing federal securities laws. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff's action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that her statements were entitled to absolute immunity. The trial court granted the defendant's motion, concluding that her statements were entitled to absolute immu- nity because the proceeding before the commission was quasi-judicial in nature and the defendant's statements were pertinent to the proceeding. Accordingly, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the action, from which the plaintiff appealed to the Appellate Court. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, reasoning that the first five factors set forth in Kelley, as well as certain public policy interests, weighed in favor of a determination that the proceeding was quasi- judicial. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held that the Appellate Court incorrectly determined that the public hearing before the commission was a quasi-judicial proceeding, the defendant's statements therefore were not entitled to absolute immu- nity, and, accordingly, this court reversed the Appellate Court's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings: courts charged with determining whether a proceeding is quasi-judicial in nature may con- sider, in addition to the six factors set forth in Kelley, any other factors that are relevant to the particular proceeding, including the procedural safeguards in place to ensure the reliability of the information presented at the proceeding and the authority of the body or entity to regulate the proceeding, and those courts must carefully scrutinize whether there is a sound public policy justification for affording absolute immunity in any given context; in the present case, the commission had discretion, pursuant to well settled principles of administrative law and the applica- ble municipal code, to apply the law to the facts set forth in the plaintiff's special permit application, the relevant statutes and regulations author- ized the commission to approve, deny or table decision on the applica- tion, thus empowering the commission to make binding orders, and the commission's action on a special permit application generally would affect the property rights of the applicant or surrounding property own- ers, such that the first four factors set forth in Kelley weighed in favor of a determination that the proceeding at issue was quasi-judicial in nature; nevertheless, this court concluded that the hearing on the plain- tiff's special permit application was not quasi-judicial in nature because it lacked procedural safeguards that would have served to ensure the reliability of the information presented, as there was no requirement that a declarant appearing before the commission make his or her statements under oath or otherwise certify that the information conveyed is accu- rate, there was no practical opportunity to meaningfully challenge the veracity of a declarant's statement, and there was no remedy available to the commission during a hearing if a witness were to convey know- ingly false information, such as a charge of perjury; moreover, a local commission generally has limited authority to reject evidence, hold speakers accountable for statements made during the hearing, or other- wise limit what information is presented to ensure the reliability of the proceeding, and public policy considerations militated against a conclusion that the proceeding at issue was quasi-judicial in nature because the public benefit to be derived from affording absolute immu- nity to statements made during a commission hearing was not suffi- ciently compelling in view of the possible damage that untruthful statements may cause to individual reputations, the lack of procedural safeguards in place to ensure reliability, and the protection afforded by the statute (§ 52-196a (b)) permitting a court to dismiss a complaint based on an opposing party's exercise of his or her constitutional right to free speech in connection with a matter of public concern; further- more, this court's conclusion that the defendant's statements before the commission were not entitled to absolute immunity was consistent with the decisions of sister state courts that have determined that proceedings before a planning and zoning commission are not quasi-judicial in nature. (Three justices concurring in part in one opinion) Argued January 10—officially released September 7, 2022

Convicted of the crime of murder in connection with the stabbing death of the victim, the defendant appealed. The defendant had hailed a taxicab that the victim was driving, and, after the victim drove the defendant to his destination, the defendant stabbed the victim repeatedly, robbed him, and fled the scene. At trial, the defendant admitted that he had stabbed the victim after accepting a ride from him but claimed that he had acted in self-defense. The defendant specifically testified that the victim had made a romantic advance toward him, a fight ensued, and, during the struggle, the victim took out a knife and began to attack the defendant but that the defendant wrestled the knife away and stabbed the victim repeatedly. The state presented abundant evidence from which the jury reasonably could have concluded either that the defen- dant had fabricated various aspects of his story or that he had used more force than was necessary to defend himself against the smaller and older victim. At the conclusion of the trial, defense counsel requested that the trial court give a specific unanimity instruction that the jurors must agree unanimously as to which factor of this state's four factor self-defense test the state had disproved. The court denied counsel's request and, instead, instructed the jury on the law of self-defense largely in accordance with this state's model criminal jury instructions. The jury unanimously found the defendant guilty of murder, thereby rejecting his claim of self-defense, and the trial court rendered judgment in accor- dance with the jury's verdict. The Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that, pursuant to this court's prior deci- sions, although a jury must reject a claim of self-defense unanimously before it may find a defendant guilty, there is generally no requirement that jurors agree on which of the self-defense factors the state has disproven. On the granting of certification, the defendant appealed to this court, claiming that this court should revisit its precedent and conclude that, in order to reject a claim of self-defense, the jurors must unanimously agree as to which factor or factors of that defense the state has disproven beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant also claimed that a specific unanimity instruction is warranted, even for a factually straightforward self-defense claim, such as his claim, in light of the complexity of the model criminal jury instruction on self- defense. Held: 1. This court declined the defendant's invitation to adopt a rule requiring that, even in factually straightforward cases, jurors unanimously agree as to which factor or factors of the claim of self-defense the state has disproven, and the Appellate Court correctly concluded that a specific unanimity instruction on self-defense was not constitutionally required: having reviewed this court's prior decisions concerning the issue pre- sented, which involved factually uncomplicated scenarios and distinct theories of self-defense or distinct statutory exceptions to the defense of self-defense, this court determined that, in the ordinary case, the constitutional requirement that the jury agree unanimously that the state has established each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt did not apply to the defense of self-defense, and, accordingly, a jury need not be unanimous as to each component of a defendant's claim of self-defense; moreover, the defendant's argument that specific unanimity is constitutionally required rested on a flawed analogy between a crime and a justification for otherwise criminal conduct, such as self-defense, insofar as the defendant asserted that, just as jurors must agree that the state has proven each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the state also must persuade jurors as to which element of self-defense it has disproven, because a crime is distinct from a defense in ways that make the unanimity requirement inapplicable to the latter; in the present case, regardless of the specific conclusion drawn by each juror, the state persuaded every juror of the fact that the defendant did not reasonably believe that the degree of force he used was necessary to protect himself from the victim, and there was no reason why the jurors, having rejected one or more aspects of the defendant's account of the events surrounding the stabbing of the victim and having unanimously concluded, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant killed the victim without adequate justification, were required to also reach a further consensus about what components of his claim of self-defense failed. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that a specific unanimity instruction was warranted in his uncomplicated case on the ground that Connecticut's model criminal jury instruction on self-defense was so convoluted that jurors could not readily grasp and apply the law of self-defense: there was no reasonable possibility that the defendant's conviction resulted from the jurors' misunderstanding of the self-defense instructions, as there was more than an adequate basis in the record for the jurors to find that every aspect of the defendant's story that he had acted in self-defense was implausible; moreover, to the extent that the model instructions were unnecessarily confusing, the most reason- able solution was for the Judicial Branch's Criminal Jury Instruction Committee to clarify and simplify those instructions, rather than for this court to impose a novel constitutional requirement, especially insofar as the model instructions arguably provided the defendant with more protection than he was constitutionally entitled to. (One justice concurring separately) Argued November 15, 2021—officially released September 13, 2022

The plaintiff sought to recover damages from the defendants for their alleged breach of contract and of their fiduciary duties in voting to, inter alia, amend the operating agreement of a limited liability company, C Co., in which the defendants held a controlling interest and of which the plaintiff had been a member. The parties had organized C Co. pursuant to the operating agreement, which was governed by Delaware law. In addition to a claim concerning the allegedly improper vote to amend the operating agreement, the plaintiff also claimed that the defendants improperly had removed him as a member of C Co. and improperly had maintained a sizable capital reserve fund, even though it was no longer needed. The case was tried to a jury, which was directed, pursuant to a jury verdict form, to decide the plaintiff's breach of contract claims first and to decide the breach of fiduciary duty claims only if it found in favor of the defendants on the breach of contract claims. The plaintiff did not object to the jury verdict form. Thereafter, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff on his breach of contract claims but did not reach the fiduciary duty claims, which remained unadjudicated and never were disposed of by the trial court. The defendants filed two separate appeals with the Appellate Court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment as to the plaintiff's capital reserve fund claim but reversed the judgment as to the plaintiff's claims regarding the vote to amend the operating agreement and his removal as a member of C Co. The Appellate Court remanded the case with direction to render judgment for the defendants on the latter claims. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff and the defendants filed separate appeals with this court. Held that the Appellate Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the defendants' appeals to that court because there was no final judgment in the trial court, and, accordingly, this court vacated the Appellate Court's judg- ment and remanded the case with direction to dismiss the defendants' appeals: the issue of whether the defendants appealed from a final judgment was controlled by Connecticut procedural law, pursuant to which a trial court that has not disposed of all of the causes of action against an appellant is presumed to have implicitly disposed of any legally inconsistent, but not legally consistent, alternative theories; more- over, Delaware law controlled the substantive issues in the present case, and, although that state's law requires courts to dismiss fiduciary duty claims that have no independent basis apart from breach of contract claims, nothing about that policy suggested that the plaintiff's breach of contract and fiduciary duty claims were legally inconsistent, insofar as establishing the elements of one of those causes of action did not preclude liability with respect to the other cause of action under either Delaware or Connecticut law; accordingly, rather than being legally inconsistent, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty were more akin to legally consistent but alternative theories that prevent double recovery, and the issue of whether the plaintiff's fiduciary duty claims could proceed under Delaware law was left to the trial court; further- more, the plaintiff did not withdraw or unconditionally abandon his fiduciary duty claims, even though he neither objected to the verdict form nor appealed from the Appellate Court's conclusion that he had abandoned his fiduciary duty claims by failing to object, and this court stressed that, to promote judicial economy, trial courts overseeing jury trials should always have the jury decide all counts of a complaint, except when doing so would result in a legally inconsistent finding that would require a new trial. Argued April 27—officially released September 20, 2022

Convicted of home invasion, burglary in the first degree, attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and conspiracy to commit home invasion, the defendant appealed to this court. The defendant and his friend, B, had agreed to steal drugs and money from the home of the defendant's drug dealer, D. After ingesting cocaine and acquiring various tools and supplies from B's workplace, the defendant and B drove to D's home, which they entered through the basement. The defendant and B were wearing facemasks and armed with box cutters, and B also held a machete. After they were confronted by D and other occupants of D's home, the defendant and B fled and were later apprehended by the police. Prior to trial, the defendant moved to suppress a written statement he made after being brought to the police station, claiming that it was inadmissible pursuant to the statute (§ 54-1o) governing the admissibility of statements made in the course of an unrecorded custodial interroga- tion at a place of detention. Following a hearing, at which the defendant and several police officers testified, the court denied the motion to suppress. The court concluded that, although the electronic recording of the encounter in which the defendant had made his statement was not preserved, the state had overcome the statute's presumption of inadmissibility of the defendant's written statement under § 54-1o (h) because the failure to preserve the electronic recording was not in bad faith and because the state had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's statement was voluntary and reliable. At trial, the prosecutor also sought to admit into evidence a cooperation agreement that the state had entered into with B. Pursuant to that agreement, B agreed to testify truthfully, and the state agreed that it would ''make known to the sentencing court [in B's criminal case] the nature, extent, value, and truthfulness of [B's] information and testi- mony.'' Defense counsel objected to the admission of that agreement, claiming that the portions of the agreement regarding B's obligation to testify truthfully constituted improper vouching for B's credibility. The trial court overruled defense counsel's objection and admitted the agree- ment in its entirety. Held: 1. The trial court correctly determined that the state had established, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the defendant's written statement to the police was both voluntary and reliable and, therefore, admissible under § 54-1o, and, accordingly, the court properly denied the defen- dant's motion to suppress: a. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the trial court's findings were clearly erroneous insofar as the court determined that, while the defendant was in a holding cell and without any prompting, he told a police sergeant that he wanted to give a statement: there was no evidence that the sergeant approached the defendant in his cell, as the sergeant testified that he had joined the defendant in the processing room, and this court therefore declined to rely on that subsidiary factual finding in determining whether the defendant's statement was voluntary; moreover, because there was at least some evidence in the record that the defendant's offer to make a statement was not prompted by the police, that subsidiary finding was not clearly erroneous, and, regardless of whether the statement was unprompted, it was undisputed that the defendant responded affirmatively when the police asked if he would provide a statement. b. The defendant's statement was voluntary insofar as he implicitly gave a knowing, voluntary waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (384 U.S. 436): the defendant responded affirmatively and without any reservations when asked whether he would provide a statement, he received two Miranda warnings before making his statement, at all times, he stated that he understood his rights and had a calm and cooperative demeanor, and the facts demonstrated, and the defendant specifically testified, that he was not coerced or threatened in any manner; moreover, the trial court specifically discredited the defendant's testimony that he had been cold, tired, under the influence of alcohol and narcotics, and not proficient in English at the time he made his statement, the court instead credited the police officers' testimony that the defendant spoke and understood English and did not appear to be tired or under the influence of alcohol or drugs, and, because the defendant did not dispute the trial court's findings in that regard as clearly erroneous, this court would not second-guess the trial court's credibility determinations; fur- thermore, this court declined the defendant's request to read a require- ment into § 54-1o that the state provide a valid explanation for its failure to record and preserve a custodial interrogation for the defendant's statement to be admissible, the legislature having declined to require the state to provide such an explanation in order to overcome the pre- sumption of inadmissibility set forth in that statute. c. In view of the totality of the circumstances, the defendant's statement was voluntary under due process principles: the record supported the trial court's findings, which the defendant did not claim were clearly erroneous, that he spoke and understood English at the time of the interrogation, the interrogation occurred only a few hours after the defen- dant's arrest and lasted for only about thirty minutes, and there was no evidence of physical or psychological punishment or the use of any potentially coercive interrogation methods. d. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defendant's statement was reliable: the testimony of B, D, and the occu- pants of D's home corroborated the defendant's statement, the defendant testified that the substance of the statement was accurate, and none of the undisputed facts demonstrated that the defendant was coerced into giving a false confession. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claim that the truthfulness provi- sions contained in the cooperation agreement between B and the state constituted improper vouching for B's credibility, as a matter of both evidentiary law and prosecutorial impropriety: truthfulness provisions do not constitute impermissible vouching when they merely reveal that a witness has an obligation to testify truthfully and explain the conse- quences of a breach of that obligation, but such provisions constitute impermissible vouching when the prosecutor explicitly or implicitly indicates that he or she has verified the truth of the testimony presented to the fact finder, when they refer to facts not in evidence, or when they offer the prosecutor's personal opinion of the truthfulness of the witness' testimony; in the present case, the provisions stating that B had a duty to ''truthfully disclose'' and ''truthfully testify,'' and that he could be charged with perjury if he lied, did not constitute impermissible vouching, as they merely stated B's obligation to testify truthfully and explained the consequences of his failure to do so; moreover, although the provision stating that the prosecutor would ''make known to the sentencing court [in B's criminal case] the nature, extent, value, and truthfulness of [B's] information and testimony'' came very close to impermissibly suggesting to the jury that the prosecutor had access to tools or information, not available to the jury, that the prosecutor would use to ensure that the witness tells the truth, nothing in the agreement suggested that the prosecutor already had verified the truth of B's testi- mony, the determination of the truthfulness of B's testimony was left to the jury, and the state's role in determining credibility under the agreement would not arise until the sentencing hearing in B's separate criminal case; furthermore, although it would have been better if the trial court had omitted the reference to the provision regarding what the prosecutor would have made known to the sentencing court in B's criminal case, this court stopped short of concluding that the trial court abused its discretion, as an evidentiary matter, in admitting it; accord- ingly, because the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the truthfulness provisions as a matter of evidentiary law, the defendant's claim that the admission of the truthfulness provisions constituted prose- cutorial impropriety also failed; nevertheless, this court emphasized that the state must take care in drafting cooperation agreements and that trial courts must carefully examine their language before admitting them fully into evidence, it cautioned the state not to insinuate in future cooperation agreements or in argument to the jury that it has verified testimony or that it is in a position to monitor and accurately verify a witness' testimony, and it encouraged courts to address concerns about improper vouching in cooperative agreements by making appropriate redactions. 3. The evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crimes of which he was convicted: a. The evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree: contrary to the defendant's argument that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt both that he intended to commit a larceny and that he intended to do so through the use or threatened use of force, it was well settled that the intent element of robbery relates to the commission of the larceny and not to the use or threatened use of physical force; moreover, even if the evidence was insufficient to establish that the defendant actually used or threatened the use of a box cutter, the defendant was charged and convicted of only attempt to commit robbery, and the defendant's conduct in asking B to procure weapons, kicking down the door to D's basement knowing that at least one person was home, and stating that he would do whatever it took to get money and drugs, including using force and tying up the occupants, was sufficient to establish that he took a substantial step in using or threatening to use the box cutter. b. The evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of burglary in the first degree: the defendant conceded that, to establish the particular offense of burglary in the first degree with which he was charged, the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt only that he was armed with a dangerous instrument, not that he used or displayed a dangerous instrument; moreover, the jury reasonably could have found that the defendant used or attempted to use a box cutter in circumstances such that its use or attempted use was capable of causing death or serious physical injury. c. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit home invasion, predicated on his attempt to com- mit robbery in the first degree: because conspiracy is a specific intent crime, specific intent is required for every element of home invasion, including, in this case, the predicate felony of attempt to commit robbery in the first degree, and, although the defendant relied on his own testi- mony in support of his claim that he and B had agreed only to enter and commit a larceny in D's home and not to hurt anyone therein, the jury was not required to credit his testimony; moreover, there was sufficient other evidence, which the jury was entitled to credit, that the defendant had the specific intent to use or threaten the use of physical force against another person for the purpose of compelling that person to deliver property, including B's testimony that the defendant had agreed to use whatever force was necessary to force the occupants of D's home to comply and that he had asked B to gather the machete, box cutters, and other supplies, including zip ties and duct tape, the defendant's own statement to the police, in which he indicated those supplies would be used in case they needed to tie up D, and the testimony of D's brother that the defendant was holding a sharp object or knife when the occupants of D's home confronted the defendant after he forced his way into their basement. (Two justices concurring separately in one opinion) Argued March 28—officially released September 20, 2022

The plaintiff, who was employed as a nurse by the defendant, the Department of Mental Health and Addiction Services, sought to recover damages for employment discrimination and retaliation, in violation of the Con- necticut Fair Employment Practices Act (CFEPA) (§ 46a-51 et seq.). The plaintiff was diagnosed with allergic and nonallergic rhinitis and asthma and began experiencing debilitating reactions when exposed to scents. As a result, she requested, and the committee tasked with reviewing requests for accommodation pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) (42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.) on behalf of the defendant approved, certain workplace accommodations, including designating the unit to which the plaintiff was assigned as a scent-free environment and providing a high efficiency particulate air filtration system for that unit. Some employees failed to comply with the scent-free designation, and, to avoid adverse reactions, the plaintiff would use fans to disperse scents and seek refuge in an office that was free of scents. The plaintiff's attorney subsequently requested a meeting with the defendant in order to engage in the informal, interactive process required by CFEPA, pursu- ant to which the employee and the employer are to identify the precise limitations resulting from the employee's disability and potential, reason- able accommodations for those limitations. The chairperson of the ADA review committee met with the plaintiff and her attorney, but, with limited exceptions, the defendant took no additional measures to enforce the scent-free designation. After filing a complaint with and obtaining a release of jurisdiction from the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO), the plaintiff commenced the present action, alleging unlawful employment discrimination on the basis of her disabil- ity. While the case was pending, the defendant updated its scent exposure protocols, and those updates prohibited the plaintiff from using fans or seeking refuge in the office that was free of scents. The plaintiff's attor- ney thereafter notified the ADA review committee of the defendant's refusal to provide the accommodations that the committee previously had approved, requested certain reasonable accommodations, and indi- cated her willingness to meet. The defendant did not meet with the plaintiff or her attorney but, instead, notified the plaintiff that her requested accommodations had been denied, except for the provision of a portable air filtration system. The plaintiff subsequently retired on the basis of the defendant's failure to provide reasonable accommoda- tions. After receiving another release of jurisdiction from CHRO, the plaintiff amended her complaint to include claims that the defendant had failed to engage in the good faith interactive process required by CFEPA, that the defendant retaliated against her for filing a disability discrimination complaint, and that she had been constructively dis- charged because of her disability. During a court trial, the plaintiff sought to introduce into evidence three exhibits containing certain emails between the plaintiff's attorney and the defendant's attorney, and a letter the plaintiff's attorney sent to a CHRO investigator and copied to the defendant's attorney. In those communications, the plaintiff's attorney addressed recent instances of scent exposures, proposed various poli- cies, and clarified and sought a meeting to discuss the plaintiff's requested accommodations. The defendant's attorney objected to the admission of those communications, arguing, inter alia, that they per- tained to settlement discussions before CHRO and, therefore, were inad- missible. The trial court overruled the objection. Over the hearsay objec- tion of the defendant's attorney, the court also admitted into evidence an exhibit containing emails between the plaintiff and two union delegates regarding coworkers who did not comply with the scent-free designation. Thereafter, the trial court rendered judgment for the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant had failed to provide the plaintiff with the reasonable accommodations afforded by the ADA review committee and that the good faith interactive process required by CFEPA did not continue after the correspondence from the plaintiff's attorney to the defendant's attorney. The Appellate Court reversed the trial court's judgment, con- cluding that the communications between the plaintiff's attorney, the defendant's attorney, and the CHRO investigator improperly were admit- ted into evidence under the applicable provision (§ 4-8) of the Connecti- cut Code of Evidence because the letters and emails constituted settle- ment communications that occurred within the context of CHRO's mandatory mediation program. That court also concluded that the improper admission of those exhibits had prejudiced the defendant because they were the basis for the trial court's finding that the defendant had failed to engage in the interactive process. The Appellate Court also concluded that the trial court improperly had precluded the defendant from cross-examining the plaintiff regarding her original deposition testi- mony, which she subsequently amended through an errata sheet, and improperly had admitted the exhibit containing the union delegates' statements under the hearsay exception for admissions by a party oppo- nent without first determining whether the statements related to a matter within the scope of their employment. Because a new trial was required on the basis of the improperly admitted exhibits, however, the Appellate Court did not address whether those additional evidentiary errors were harmful. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to this court. Held: 1. The Appellate Court incorrectly concluded that the communications between the plaintiff's attorney, the defendant's attorney, and the CHRO investigator improperly were admitted into evidence under § 4-8 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence on the ground that they constituted settle- ment communications between the parties, and, therefore, that court improperly reversed the trial court's judgment: once an employee initi- ates the informal, interactive process required by CFEPA, the employer must make a good faith effort to participate in discussion, and, although evidence of an offer to compromise or to settle a disputed claim is inadmissible on the issues of liability and damages, such evidence may be admissible under § 4-8 (b) (1) if it is offered ''for another purpose,'' including, under the appropriate circumstances, for the purpose of estab- lishing a party's initiation of or participation in the good faith interactive process, or for the purpose of demonstrating a party's failure to commu- nicate with the opposing party by way of initiation or response; in the present case, regardless of whether the communications at issue constituted offers to settle or compromise the plaintiff's claims, they were admissible as evidence of the defendant's failure to engage in the good faith interactive process, which, as the defendant acknowledged, was an ongoing process that continued during the course of the plaintiff's employment and after she filed her complaint alleging disability discrimi- nation; moreover, contrary to the defendant's claim that the communica- tions were offered for the purpose of demonstrating its liability, the trial court did not rely on them to find that the defendant engaged in discrimination, and nothing in the record suggested that the communica- tions occurred within the context of CHRO's mandatory mediation pro- gram rather than as part of CHRO's investigative efforts; accordingly, given the content of the communications, in which the plaintiff's attorney repeatedly suggested various polices for dealing with scents in the work- place and sought meetings to discuss issues regarding reasonable accom- modations for the plaintiff's disability, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting those communications for the purpose of establishing the plaintiff's participation in the good faith interactive process and the defendant's failure to continue to participate in that process by way of response. 2. The defendant could not prevail on its claim that the Appellate Court's judgment could be affirmed on the alternative ground that the other evidentiary errors identified by that court were harmful to the defendant: considering the totality of the evidence, this court could not conclude that the improper exclusion of the plaintiff's original deposition testi- mony, which subsequently had been amended by way of an errata sheet, affected the outcome of the trial, as the defendant's attorney cross- examined the plaintiff extensively and was permitted to inquire into the subjects of those amendments, including the extent of the plaintiff's disability and the efficacy of the accommodations provided; moreover, the defendant did not dispute at trial that the plaintiff was disabled and entitled to reasonable accommodations but, instead, focused on the reasonableness and effectiveness of the accommodations that it pro- vided; furthermore, the union delegates' hearsay statements were cumu- lative of other evidence that was properly admitted and that was largely uncontested at trial, including the delegates' in-court testimony regard- ing certain employees who repeatedly disregarded the scent-free desig- nation, the minutes from various ADA review committee meetings docu- menting the recurrent problem with scent exposures in the plaintiff's workplace, the testimony of the plaintiff's former supervisor regarding frustrations with and incidents involving certain staff who disregarded the scent-free designation, and emails and incident reports memorializ- ing those incidents. (One justice dissenting) Argued January 19—officially released September 27, 2022

Convicted of felony murder, conspiracy to commit robbery in the first degree, and carrying a pistol without a permit, the defendant appealed. The defendant and two friends, M and C, encountered the victim on a walking path and decided to rob him. C attempted to shoot the victim, but his gun jammed, and the defendant used his own gun to fatally shoot the victim. The three men took money and other belongings from the victim, and fled the scene. Approximately one week later, the defendant recounted the details of the incident to his friend, B. Around the same time, M described the incident to S, a friend, while they were together in M's backyard. At trial, B and S both testified, pursuant to cooperation agreements they each had with the state, regarding the conversations that they had with the defendant and M, respectively. Defense counsel objected when the state attempted to question S regarding the statement M had made to him, but the trial court determined that M's statement to S was admissible under the relevant provision (§ 8-6 (4)) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence embracing the hearsay exception for statements against penal interest. In making that determination, the court found that M was unavailable to testify, M's statement to S was sufficiently trustworthy, and the statement was against M's penal interest insofar as it implicated M in a plan to rob the victim, even if the statement also was, to some extent, self-serving. The defendant testified in his own defense, claiming that an unknown individual had shot the victim. During closing argument, the prosecutor suggested that the jury should discredit the defendant's testimony because he had tailored it to reflect the evidence presented by the other witnesses who had testified before the defendant took the stand. On the defendant's appeal, held: 1. The trial court properly admitted M's statement to S, in which M inculpated the defendant in the shooting: a. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting M's statement as a statement against penal interest under § 8-6 (4) of the Connecticut Code of Evidence: M's statement to S, which the state offered as a dual inculpatory statement insofar as it inculpated both M and the defendant, was against M's penal interest because M implicated himself in a plan to rob the victim and admitted his participation in the robbery, which gave rise to a homicide, exposing himself to a risk of punishment for conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and felony murder; moreover, regardless of the extent to which M's statement was intended to minimize his participation in the homicide by identifying the defendant as the shooter, the entire statement was self-inculpatory, including the specific portions in which M specifically identified the defendant as the shooter, because it exposed M to potential criminal liability for the same types of crimes with which the defendant was charged, and, inasmuch as this court concluded that M's entire statement was inculpatory, it declined the defendant's invitation to consider adopting a rule that prohibits the admission non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory; furthermore, the circumstances under which M made the statement were strongly indica- tive of its reliability, as M made the statement of his own volition, only one week after the crime took place, to an individual with whom he had a close relationship, during a casual encounter in his own backyard, and other evidence presented at trial, including video surveillance footage, the testimony of other witnesses, and physical evidence corroborated the trustworthiness of M's statement. b. The admission of M's statement to S did not violate the defendant's federal constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him: M's statement was nontestimonial, as it was made in an informal setting, on M's own initiative, and to a friend before any criminal charges had been filed, and, therefore, it was not made under circumstances that would lead to a reasonable belief that it would be available for use at a later trial; accordingly, the defendant's unpreserved confrontation clause claim failed under the third prong of State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233), insofar as this court was unable to conclude that an alleged constitutional violation existed. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his right of confrontation under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution was violated when the prosecutor, during closing argument, presented a generic tailoring argument: a generic tailoring argument is a comment, often made during closing argument, asking the jury to infer that the defendant had fabricated his testimony to conform to the testimony of previous witnesses, solely on the basis of the defendant's presence at trial and without reference to evidence from which the fact finder might reasonably infer that the substance of the defendant's testimony was fabricated in light of the evidence admitted at trial; in the present case, the prosecutor indicated that the defendant had listened to all of the testimony during the trial before deciding which pieces of evidence he would agree with, but in the context of noting that the defendant's account of the incident was inconsistent with his behavior on surveil- lance video and sharply diverged from the testimony of S and B, which supported the inference that the defendant's version of events was fabricated to conform to the evidence presented; accordingly, the chal- lenged tailoring comments were specific rather than generic, as the prosecutor's suggestion of tailoring was tied to evidence admitted at trial that, if credited by the jury, could have supported the prosecutor's claims, and, therefore, the challenged comments did not violated the defendant's state constitutional right of confrontation. 3. This court declined to review the defendant's claim that the prosecutor improperly had elicited certain information contained in the cooperation agreements between the state and S and B, and improperly presented closing argument relating to that information: the defendant's claim was an unpreserved evidentiary claim masquerading as a claim of prosecu- torial impropriety, because, during closing argument, the prosecutor merely commented on evidence that the trial court explicitly had allowed during S's and B's testimony, which was not improper, and the defendant failed to claim in his main brief filed with this court that the trial court had abused its discretion in admitting such testimony. (Two justices concurring separately) Argued February 23—officially released October 4, 2022