State of Connecticut v. Roger B.

Summary

The court affirmed the defendant's convictions, holding that his unpreserved due process claim based on pre-accusation delay was not reviewable because the record did not establish actual substantial prejudice. The court also declined to review his unpreserved challenge to the jury's credibility instruction under the constitutional plain-error doctrines, concluding that the instruction concerned general credibility principles and was neither legally erroneous nor manifestly unjust. The opinion had no separate writings.