State of Connecticut v. Brandon Montrell Bellamy — Rogers, J., concurring

Summary

The concurrence would reject the broad implied-waiver rule for unpreserved jury-instruction claims, concluding that mere review and acquiescence to proposed instructions does not establish a knowing and voluntary waiver. It would instead apply the narrower preexisting approach, under which waiver requires focused discussion of the challenged instruction and explicit assent, but would still conclude that Bellamy's identification-instruction claim is not reviewable because it alleges nonconstitutional instructional error. The concurrence therefore would affirm on reasoning different from that adopted by the majority.