Supreme Court of Connecticut
State v. Kyle A.
January 30, 2024348 Conn. 437
Summary
The court held that the trial court's failure to identify and define the intended crime in its first-degree burglary instruction did not constitute plain error requiring reversal. Although naming and defining the intended crime is the better practice, the instruction accurately stated the burglary elements, distinguished the intent-to-commit-a-crime element from unlawful entry, and did not produce a manifest injustice on these facts. The judgment affirming the defendant's convictions was affirmed.