State of Connecticut v. Brandon Montrell Bellamy

Summary

This concurrence rejects the broad implied-waiver rule that treats defense counsel's acquiescence in proposed jury instructions as an intentional waiver of later constitutional challenges. It would restore the narrower rule requiring evidence that counsel induced the error or knowingly and voluntarily waived a specific objection, but concludes that the defendant's eyewitness-identification claim is not reviewable because it alleges nonconstitutional instructional error. Chief Justice Rogers, concurring separately, likewise would reject the broad waiver rule but would affirm on the ground that the claim fails under the constitutional-error requirement.