State v. Akande, 11 A.3d 140

Defendant Akande was convicted after a jury trial of two counts forgery in the second degree and two counts larceny in the sixth degree.
The trial court gave an initial jury instruction on forgery and later provided a written supplemental instruction in response to the jury’s request for ‘points of forgery and of larceny.’
Defense counsel did not object to the initial or supplemental instructions during trial.
On appeal, Akande challenged the sufficiency of the jury instructions, seeking Golding review of a constitutional error in the supplemental instruction.
The Appellate Court held Akande waived the Golding claim by acquiescing to the supplemental instruction; the Supreme Court affirmed that waiver.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Appellate Court correctly held waiver of Golding review	Akande (Akande) argues lack of waiver since counsel did not affirmatively express satisfaction with the instruction.	Akande argues Ebron and related lines require review under Golding; Kitchens supports non-waiver in this context.	Waiver is implied; majority holds acquiescence suffices as waiver

State v. Foster, 293 Conn. 327 (2009) (waiver of instructional error when defense acquiesces)
State v. Whitford, 260 Conn. 610 (2002) (waiver under supplemental instruction context)
State v. Ebron, 292 Conn. 656 (2009) (acquiescence does not always equal waiver; distinguished by Kitchens later)
State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (2011) (new rule: defense may waive Golding review when counsel approves proposed instructions)
State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (1989) (standard for unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Jones, 193 Conn. 70 (1984) (pre-Kitchens waiver principles for trial objections)
State v. Holness, 289 Conn. 535 (2008) (Golding waiver when defense requests limiting instruction)