State v. Ruocco, 151 Conn.App. 732

Defendant Dustin Ruocco and girlfriend rented a basement apartment adjacent to the Gennettes’ lot; a shed on the Gennettes’ property was about 20 feet from the property line.
On May 5, 2011 neighbors observed defendant’s car parked near the property line and later saw someone removing items from the Gennettes’ shed and placing them in the defendant’s trunk.
Owner Donald Gennette discovered multiple tools and large quantities of copper and Romex wire missing; he reported the loss and later received an insurance payment of about $3,000.
Police investigation connected the defendant to sales of scrap wire the day after the burglary; defendant was charged with third‑degree burglary and third‑degree larceny (value threshold $2,000).
At trial the jury convicted on both counts; defendant appealed alleging (1) failure to give mandatory no‑adverse‑inference jury instruction under Conn. Gen. Stat. §54‑84(b), (2) improper exclusion of portions of his expert’s testimony, and (3) erroneous statutory construction that a shed is a "building."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ruocco)	Held
Failure to give no‑adverse‑inference instruction under §54‑84(b)	Record may be incomplete; possible off‑the‑record waiver at in‑chambers charge conference	No waiver on the record; instruction is mandatory and omission is plain error requiring reversal	Omission was plain error; record adequate for review; reversal and new trial required
Exclusion of expert testimony on price of wire	Expert lacked basis to testify to wire price on the burglary date; testimony speculative	Expert could assist jury on value and amount issues relevant to larceny threshold	Court properly excluded expert on price (unqualified for historical price); exclusion affirmed
Exclusion of expert testimony on amount of wire needed for service upgrade	Testimony about how much wire is needed to upgrade service is irrelevant to theft value	Amount of wire in shed directly bears on total stolen value and is relevant	Excluding testimony on amount of wire was erroneous but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (jury still lacked price per foot)
Whether a shed is a "building" under §53a‑100(a)(1) for burglary	Shed meets statutory and ordinary meaning of "building" (structure with walls and roof)	Argues dictionary range creates ambiguity; urges legislative history consideration	Court correctly applied plain‑meaning rule; shed is a "building"; motion to dismiss properly denied

State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296 (Conn. 2009) (plain error two‑step framework)
State v. Stewart, 255 Conn. 913 (Conn. 2000) (charging conference/waiver issues re: no‑inference instruction)
State v. Suplicki, 33 Conn. App. 126 (Conn. App. Ct. 1993) (omission of §54‑84(b) instruction is plain error)
State v. Baptiste, 302 Conn. 46 (Conn. 2011) (off‑the‑record charge conferences and need to summarize on record)
State v. Brown, 299 Conn. 640 (Conn. 2011) (burden to establish waiver when charging conference record absent)
State v. Ward, 306 Conn. 698 (Conn. 2012) (statutory interpretation under §1‑2z/plain‑meaning rule)
State v. Billie, 250 Conn. 172 (Conn. 1999) (relevancy standard; evidence that tends to support a fact is admissible)
Sullivan v. Metro‑North Commuter R.R. Co., 292 Conn. 150 (Conn. 2009) (standards for admissibility of expert testimony)