State v. Roman

Summary

The Supreme Court of Connecticut held that the trial court committed plain error by omitting the no adverse inference instruction required by General Statutes § 54-84 (b) from its final jury instructions, even though the instruction had been given to the venire panels and in the preliminary instructions, because the omission contravened controlling Appellate Court precedent (Hicks) that the court concluded correctly construed the statute to require the instruction in the final charge. The court overruled Suplicki's automatic-reversal rule, holding that failure to comply with § 54-84 (b) is not structural error, and clarified that the manifest injustice prong of plain error review is measured by a constitutional harmless error standard under which the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no reasonable possibility the jury was misled. Because the state's proof rested heavily on the defendant's prior inconsistent statements and unrebutted confession testimony, the court could not exclude a reasonable possibility that the jury drew an adverse inference from his silence, requiring reversal. Chief Justice Mullins concurred in the judgment while questioning whether the harmless error rubric remains apt for Kitchens-waived instructional claims, and Justice D'Auria dissented, contending the timing question was debatable and therefore not plain error.