State v. Ramon A. G., 190 Conn. App. 483

Victim and Ramon A. G. had a prior relationship; a protective order issued March 18, 2013 prohibiting contact. On March 22–23, 2013 an altercation occurred in which the victim was assaulted and later received texts from the defendant.
Police arrived, the victim was injured and hospitalized; a witness saw a man kicking the victim; officer testified he received a call from the defendant who acknowledged confronting the victim but denied touching her.
Defendant was tried on robbery (1st degree), assault (2nd degree) and criminal violation of a protective order; jury acquitted on robbery and assault 2nd, convicted of assault 3rd (lesser included) and violation of protective order; defendant pleaded guilty to a part B information and was sentenced.
Trial counsel submitted a written request to charge seeking a defense-of-personal-property instruction (General Statutes § 53a-21) but did not specify which counts the defense should apply to.
The court held in-chambers and on-the-record charge conferences, circulated multiple draft charges (which included the defense applying to robbery only), and defense counsel twice expressed that he was "all set" and later stated "No objections" after the final charge was given.
During rebuttal the prosecutor said cell phone records "probably would have helped me;" defense later sought a curative instruction; court gave one and the prosecutor characterized the remark as inadvertent.

Issue	State's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court erred by not instructing jury that defense of personal property applied to assault count	Defendant’s written request was too ambiguous; trial court granted a property-defense instruction and defense had opportunities to review and comment	Trial argued request to charge preserved a property-defense instruction applicable to robbery and assault, and omission violated due process and right to present a defense	Not preserved; implied waiver — defendant had drafts, participated in conferences, accepted charge, and made no contemporaneous objection
Whether prosecutor’s rebuttal remark about cell‑phone records deprived defendant of a fair trial	The comment was inadvertent, isolated, and not outcome-determinative given evidence; curative instruction was given	Remark was improper commentary on facts not in evidence and prejudiced the jury	Impropriety occurred but did not deprive defendant of a fair trial — isolated, invited by defense testimony, not central, strong state case, curative instruction effective

State v. Kitchens, 299 Conn. 447 (framework for implied waiver of instructional error; waiver where counsel had drafts, opportunity to comment and accepted instructions)
State v. Ramos, 261 Conn. 156 (preservation where parties and court treated a general request as applying to all counts and state opposed applicability)
State v. Paige, 304 Conn. 426 (preservation where both parties submitted competing requests and trial court heard argument)
State v. Johnson, 316 Conn. 45 (preservation where court selectively omitted requested language and defendant not required to object to truncated instruction)
State v. Thomas W., 301 Conn. 724 (example applying Kitchens to find implied waiver where defendant reviewed drafts, requested an addition, and expressed satisfaction)
State v. King, 289 Conn. 496 (rule that a claim must be distinctly raised to preserve appellate review of jury instructions)
State v. Carter, 198 Conn. 386 (preservation requires alerting trial court to the specific deficiency now claimed on appeal)
State v. Williams, 204 Conn. 523 (factors for assessing whether prosecutorial impropriety deprived defendant of a fair trial)
State v. Bellamy, 323 Conn. 400 (reaffirming Kitchens waiver framework)
State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802 (application of Kitchens and Golding limits when waiver found)