State v. Walker, 319 Conn. 668

Defendant James E. Walker was tried for a nonfatal shooting; key state witness was jailhouse informant James Dickerson who testified against Walker.
During jury selection, counsel and the court revealed that defense counsel had a brief, pretrial conversation with Dickerson (who later cooperated), and the court questioned Walker on whether he was comfortable with continued representation.
The record contained a colloquy suggesting an off‑record or in‑chambers matter had been raised about counsel’s possible conflict, but the record did not show whether any in‑chambers discussion occurred, its scope, or whether Walker was excluded.
Walker did not request an articulation or seek rectification of the record at trial or afterward.
On appeal Walker raised an unpreserved claim under Golding that exclusion from a critical stage (an in‑camera inquiry into conflict) violated his constitutional right to be present; the Appellate Court held the record inadequate and affirmed.
The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the missing off‑record facts required rectification (not articulation) and that Practice Book § 61‑10(b) (preventing forfeiture for failure to seek articulation) did not apply to rectification or to unpreserved claims generally.

Issue	Walker's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether Walker may obtain appellate review of an unpreserved claim that he was improperly excluded from a critical stage despite an inadequate record, and whether Practice Book § 61‑10(b) required the Appellate Court to order an articulation	The colloquy on the record shows the in‑chambers consultation and Walker could get review; if articulation were needed, § 61‑10(b) prevents dismissal for failure to seek one and requires remand for articulation	The record is inadequate; Walker failed to perfect the record (by rectification) and § 61‑10(b) applies only to articulations, not rectifications or unpreserved claims	Affirmed: record deficient such that rectification (not articulation) was required; § 61‑10(b) does not apply to rectification or serve as a safety net for unpreserved claims, so appellate review was properly denied

State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233 (established four‑part test for review of unpreserved constitutional claims)
State v. Chambers, 296 Conn. 397 (in‑camera conflict inquiries may be critical stages; record must show scope of discussion)
State v. Bonner, 290 Conn. 468 (same: fact‑intensive inquiry whether in‑chambers proceeding was a critical stage)
State v. Lopez, 271 Conn. 724 (record established a limited inquiry; presence of defendant on record was sufficient)
Priest v. Edmonds, 295 Conn. 132 (articulation appropriate to clarify ambiguous trial court rulings)
Barnes v. Barnes, 190 Conn. 491 (articulation clarifies trial court decisions; cannot alter judgment)
Bauer v. Bauer, 308 Conn. 124 (articulation cannot be used to modify substantive terms of prior judgment)
Kalams v. Giacchetto, 268 Conn. 244 (rectification used to add matters to the record when something presented at trial was missing)
State v. Floyd, 253 Conn. 700 (rectification hearing used to resolve off‑record plea agreement issues)
State v. Shashaty, 251 Conn. 768 (rectification appropriate to resolve in‑chambers discussions such as shackling issues)