State v. Iverson, 352 Conn. 422

Christopher J. Iverson was convicted of murder, attempted murder, first-degree burglary, and first-degree arson after stabbing a woman to death and assaulting her son, then setting multiple fires at the scene.
During trial, overwhelming evidence—including eyewitness testimony and forensic evidence—supported that Iverson intentionally killed the victim.
Iverson appealed, arguing he should have received a jury instruction on manslaughter (as a lesser included offense of murder) and that admission of an autopsy report by a non-testifying medical examiner violated his confrontation rights.
The trial court denied both claims, holding the manslaughter instruction was unwarranted due to lack of evidentiary support, and the autopsy report was properly admitted due to defense counsel's waiver.
On appeal, Iverson argued the trial court erred on both issues, invoking recent Supreme Court precedent regarding confrontation rights.

Issue	Iverson's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Jury instruction on lesser-included manslaughter	Sufficient evidence supported a manslaughter charge; jury should decide.	Overwhelming evidence of intent; no evidence of recklessness.	No instruction warranted; insufficient evidence for manslaughter.
Admission of autopsy report by non-testifying ME	Violated confrontation rights; relied on recent case law.	Defense counsel strategically waived objection—so claim is waived.	Claim waived; strategic waiver by counsel bars relief.

State v. Whistnant, 427 A.2d 414 (Conn. 1980) (sets the four-prong test for when a lesser included offense instruction is appropriate)
State v. Golding, 567 A.2d 823 (Conn. 1989) (establishes the standard for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
Bullcoming v. New Mexico, 131 S. Ct. 2705 (U.S. 2011) (surrogate testimony regarding forensic reports cannot satisfy the Confrontation Clause)