Skip to main content
· 8/27/2024

State v. Tahir L.

Citations

  • 227 Conn. App. 653

Syllabus

Convicted, following a jury trial, under two separate dockets, of five counts of sexual assault in the fourth degree and four counts of risk of injury to a child, the defendant appealed to this court. Held: 1. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that his right to due process under the federal constitution was violated by the trial court's preliminary instructions to the jury: by providing instructions that contained the language of the statutes that the defendant was charged with violating, the court properly informed the jury of the nature of the charges in accordance with the model jury instructions pertaining to preliminary instructions; moreover, the court included instructions regarding the state's burden to prove each element of the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, an instruction on reasonable doubt that was consis- tent with the model jury instruction for preliminary instructions, an explanation of the difference between preliminary instructions and final instructions and an instruction to the jurors that their verdict must be based exclusively on evidence presented at trial and on the principles of law in the court's final instructions; furthermore, because the court's final instructions covered all applicable legal principles, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the claimed errors regarding the trial court's preliminary instructions merited the extraordinary relief afforded under the plain error doctrine. 2. The defendant could not prevail on his claims that the trial court violated his constitutional right to due process in its final instructions to the jury: a. The defendant's claim that the court erred in failing to include in its final instructions a limiting instruction regarding the use of nonpropensity evidence for propensity purposes was unavailing: the defendant con- sented to the joinder of the two underlying cases, and the court properly In accordance with our policy of protecting the privacy interests of the victims o

Judges: Cradle; Clark; Seeley

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.