State v. Mungroo, 299 Conn. 667

Summary

The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s judgment upholding Nazra Mungroo’s conviction for fraudulent receipt of workers’ compensation benefits. The court held that defense counsel waived the defendant’s unpreserved constitutional challenge to the jury instruction defining “material fact” by repeatedly reviewing and affirmatively accepting the proposed charge. The court relied on State v. Kitchens and rejected the argument that only the defendant personally could waive the instructional claim.

Holdings

1. When the trial court provides proposed jury instructions, gives counsel a meaningful opportunity to review them, solicits comments or objections, and counsel affirmatively accepts the instructions, the defendant may be deemed to have implicitly waived the constitutional right to challenge the instructions on direct appeal. The defendant's repeated review and acceptance of the charge waived her claim under State v. Golding.
2. Defense counsel may waive a constitutional claim concerning the adequacy of a jury instruction through the exercise of professional judgment; a personal knowing and intelligent waiver by the defendant is not required in those circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the defendant waived appellate review under State v. Golding of an unpreserved constitutional challenge to the jury instruction defining material fact.
2. Whether defense counsel could waive the defendant's constitutional claim regarding the adequacy of the jury instruction by reviewing and affirmatively accepting the proposed charge.

Disposition

affirmed