State v. Tierinni, 329 Conn. 289

Defendant Christopher Tierinni was convicted after a jury trial of four counts of second‑degree sexual assault and three counts of risk of injury to a child under Connecticut law.
At trial, the court announced it would use sidebar conferences for detailed evidentiary objections to avoid repeated jury removals and delay.
The court told parties they could place objections and arguments on the record during breaks or recesses and that the procedure would not be used if either party objected.
Defense counsel and the prosecutor both stated on the record that they had no objection to the sidebar procedure; both later used sidebar conferences for evidentiary argument.
On appeal to the Appellate Court, Tierinni argued his due process right to be present at critical stages was violated because sidebar conferences were critical stages and his presence was not adequately waived; the Appellate Court affirmed, holding he waived any claim by agreeing to the procedure.
The Connecticut Supreme Court granted certification limited to whether the Appellate Court properly concluded waiver and, if not, whether the trial court’s procedure constituted structural error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Tierinni)	Held
Whether defendant waived any claim about absence from sidebar conferences	The defendant agreed to the trial court’s procedure and thus waived any right to be present for sidebar argument	Sidebar conferences are critical stages; absence was not properly waived and violated due process	Affirmed waiver: the defendant effectively waived the claim by accepting the procedure
Whether sidebar conferences are critical stages (certified question implied)	Not directly argued as a separate holding here	Court should recognize sidebar conferences as critical stages requiring defendant’s presence	Court declined to decide whether sidebars are critical stages; no determination made
Whether the trial court’s procedure constituted structural error if waiver failed	If no waiver, the state would argue any error was not structural and harmless	If no waiver and sidebars are critical, the procedure might be structural error	Court did not reach this question because it found waiver; no structural‑error ruling made
Recordkeeping obligations when using sidebars	N/A	N/A	Court reminded trial judges to make and allow a complete record of sidebar rulings and permit parties to place objections and arguments on the record during breaks

State v. Tierinni, 165 Conn. App. 839, 140 A.3d 377 (App. Ct. 2016) (Appellate Court concluded defendant waived claim about presence at sidebars by agreeing to procedure)
State v. Ouellette, 295 Conn. 173, 989 A.2d 1048 (Conn. 2010) (court may reframe certified question to reflect the actual issue)
State v. Tierinni, 323 Conn. 904, 150 A.3d 681 (Conn. 2016) (grant of certification by the Supreme Court)