State of Connecticut v. Marvin Kitchens — Katz, J., concurring

Summary

The concurrence argues that appellate waiver of an unpreserved constitutional challenge to a jury instruction requires a clear record showing that defense counsel knowingly and intentionally relinquished the specific objection. It rejects treating participation in a charging conference and general failure to object as sufficient waiver, but agrees that the challenged instructions, considered as a whole, did not create a reasonable possibility that the jury was misled. The concurrence therefore agrees with the judgment while disagreeing with the majority's waiver analysis.