State v. Valle

Syllabus

Convicted of the crimes of cruelty to animals, interfering with an officer, and threatening in the second degree, the defendant appealed. After the state had rested its case, the trial court granted the defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to various other criminal charges. He claimed, inter alia, that the court erred in submitting to the jury exhibits that were relevant only to charges that had been dismissed after the court granted his motion for a judgment of acquittal. Held: This court declined to review the defendant's unpreserved claim that the trial court erred by permitting the jury to review exhibits during its delibera- tions that related only to charges of which he had been acquitted, as, although the defendant generally objected to the court's order that all full exhibits would go to the jury for deliberation, he did not identify the exhibits he claimed should have been excluded and did not articulate the factual or legal basis for excluding those exhibits, and nothing in the record supported the defendant's claim that he was not afforded an opportunity to properly preserve his objection for appellate review. This court rejected the defendant's unpreserved claim that the statute (§ 53- 247 (a)) prohibiting conduct constituting cruelty to animals was unconstitu- tionally vague as applied to his conduct, the defendant's claim having failed under the third prong of State v. Golding (213 Conn. 233) because no constitutional violation existed, as the defendant's conduct, specifically, his conduct in confining one dog to a dirty, unsanitary, outdoor cage and in failing to provide that dog and another dog with sufficient food or water for several weeks or months at a time, fell within the unmistakable core of conduct prohibited by § 53-247 (a). Argued October 7—officially released December 23, 2025