State v. Waters ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • ***********************************************
    The “officially released” date that appears near the be-
    ginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be pub-
    lished in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was
    released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the be-
    ginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions
    and petitions for certification is the “officially released”
    date appearing in the opinion.
    All opinions are subject to modification and technical
    correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut
    Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of
    discrepancies between the advance release version of an
    opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut
    Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports
    or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to
    be considered authoritative.
    The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the
    opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and
    bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the
    Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not
    be reproduced and distributed without the express written
    permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publica-
    tions, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut.
    ***********************************************
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. RODNEY WATERS
    (AC 44342)
    Prescott, Alexander and Clark, Js.
    Syllabus
    Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crime of operating a motor vehicle
    while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, and, under a part B
    information, on a plea of guilty, of being a second time offender pursuant
    to statute (§ 14-227a (g) (2)), the defendant appealed to this court. The
    defendant had attempted to make a U-turn when the car he was driving
    twice struck a car being driven by A. The defendant drove away from
    the accident scene and went home, where he claimed to have consumed a
    significant amount of alcohol and smoked a ‘‘spliff.’’ When the defendant
    reappeared at the scene on foot about twenty minutes later, A identified
    him as the driver of the other car. Police officers noticed that he was
    acting aggressively, slurring his speech and moving unsteadily. The
    defendant thereafter failed three sobriety tests the police administered
    to him and was taken to the police station where he was questioned
    after being advised of his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona (
    384 U.S. 436
    ). The defendant was charged under subdivision (1) of § 14-
    227a (a), the behavioral subdivision, pursuant to which blood alcohol
    levels generally are excluded from evidence without a defendant’s con-
    sent, in accordance with § 14-227a (c). The defendant testified on his
    own behalf, including testifying that he had not begun to consume
    alcohol until after he returned home after the incident with A. The state
    offered as rebuttal evidence the testimony of its expert witness, L, a
    forensic toxicologist. L testified in response to a set of hypothetical
    facts about the amount of time it typically takes for alcohol to have
    observable effects on an individual’s motor functions and typical behav-
    ior associated with certain blood alcohol levels. The court overruled
    the defendant’s objection to L’s testimony. On appeal, the defendant
    claimed, inter alia, that L’s testimony was tantamount to testimony about
    the defendant’s blood alcohol content and, thus, violated the prohibition
    of such testimony under § 14-227a (c) in a prosecution under the behav-
    ioral subdivision. Held:
    1. The evidence was sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of
    operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
    liquor: the defendant’s reckless driving, the fact that he drove away
    from the accident scene, and his slurred speech and belligerent behavior
    toward the police when he returned to the scene permitted the jury
    reasonably to infer that he was intoxicated when his car struck A’s car;
    moreover, the defendant admitted that he had been driving, he was
    substantially unable to follow the police officers’ instructions when he
    failed the sobriety tests, and his refusal to take a breath analysis or
    urine test at the police station permitted an inference that a test would
    have revealed that he had an elevated blood alcohol content; further-
    more, the jury reasonably could have inferred that the defendant’s intoxi-
    cation when he reappeared at the accident scene was not reasonably
    attributable to his drinking when he arrived home after leaving the
    scene, which was supported by L’s testimony, and, although the defen-
    dant claimed that A’s testimony was suspect and that the jury was
    obligated to credit his testimony that he consumed a significant amount
    of alcohol when he returned home, it was within the jury’s province to
    determine whose testimony to credit.
    2. The defendant could not prevail under State v. Golding (
    213 Conn. 233
    )
    or the plain error doctrine on his unpreserved claim that the trial court
    improperly permitted L to testify, in violation of § 14-227a (c), about
    the likely blood alcohol content of a person who was slurring his speech:
    a. Because the defendant objected to L’s testimony on the ground that
    it was irrelevant and that L could not provide any definite conclusions
    about the defendant’s blood alcohol content, the defendant’s claim on
    appeal was unpreserved, as he did not cite to § 14-227a (c) or otherwise
    inform the trial court that the admission of L’s testimony without the
    defendant’s consent would violate § 14-227a (c).
    b. The defendant’s claim that he was denied his right to due process as
    a result of L’s testimony was unavailing; the defendant failed to demon-
    strate that the testimony was so crucial, critical and highly significant
    that he was denied a fair trial, as his claim did not implicate anything
    more than an evidentiary or statutory claim and, thus, could not be
    reviewed because it was not constitutional in nature, as required by Gold-
    ing.
    c. Although the state violated the spirit if not the letter of § 14-227a (c)
    by seeking to admit opinion testimony in a behavioral case under § 14-
    227a (a) (1) that implicitly related to the defendant’s blood alcohol
    content, the defendant nevertheless failed to demonstrate the existence
    of plain error.
    3. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the defen-
    dant failed to establish a proper foundation to cross-examine L about
    whether other substances could have affected the rate at which an
    individual can become visibly intoxicated from alcohol: although the
    defendant had the opportunity to lay a factual foundation as to what
    substances he ingested, he did not define what a spliff was or what
    substances it contained, and, without that evidentiary foundation, any
    opinion by L regarding the effect of other substances in combination
    with alcohol on the rate of intoxication lacked relevance; accordingly,
    the court’s decision to preclude L’s testimony on that basis did not
    violate the defendant’s sixth amendment right to confrontation.
    4. The record was inadequate to review the defendant’s claim that the trial
    court improperly denied his motion to suppress statements he made at
    the accident scene and at the police station, as he failed to seek a proper
    memorandum of decision from the court addressing all of the arguments
    he raised in his motion or to seek an articulation of the court’s decision,
    which was made without having conducted an evidentiary hearing prior
    to ruling on the motion.
    Argued April 11—officially released August 2, 2022
    Procedural History
    Two part substitute information charging the defen-
    dant, in the first part, with the crime of operating a
    motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating
    liquor, and, in the second part, with having previously
    been convicted of operating a motor vehicle while under
    the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs, brought
    to the Superior Court in the judicial district of New
    Haven, where the court, B. Fischer, J., denied the defen-
    dant’s motion to suppress certain evidence; thereafter,
    the first part of the information was tried to the jury
    before B. Fischer, J.; verdict of guilty; subsequently,
    the defendant was presented to the court on a plea of
    guilty to the second part of the information; judgment
    of guilty in accordance with the verdict and the plea,
    from which the defendant appealed to this court.
    Affirmed.
    James B. Streeto, senior assistant public defender,
    with whom was Juan Carlos Leal, certified legal intern,
    for the appellant (defendant).
    Nathan J. Buchok, deputy assistant state’s attorney,
    with whom were Kathleen E. Morgan, deputy assistant
    state’s attorney, and, on the brief, Patrick J. Griffin,
    former state’s attorney, Timothy F. Costello, senior
    assistant state’s attorney, and Kevin M. Black, Jr., for-
    mer special deputy assistant state’s attorney, for the
    appellee (state).
    Opinion
    PRESCOTT, J. The defendant, Rodney Waters, appeals
    from the judgment of conviction, rendered after a jury
    trial, of operating a motor vehicle while under the influ-
    ence of alcohol in violation of General Statutes § 14-
    227a (a) (1), and, following a plea of guilty to a part B
    information, of being a second time offender pursuant
    to § 14-227a (g) (2). On appeal, the defendant claims
    that his conviction under § 14-227a (a) (1) is not sup-
    ported by sufficient evidence. He also claims that the
    trial court improperly admitted expert testimony
    related to the defendant’s blood alcohol content (BAC)
    in contravention of § 14-227a (c), restricted his cross-
    examination of the state’s expert witness, and denied
    his motion to suppress inculpatory statements he made
    to the police. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    The following facts, which the jury reasonably could
    have found, and procedural history are relevant to this
    appeal. At approximately 8:45 p.m. on May 18, 2019,
    Tion Adlam was driving on Dixwell Avenue in New
    Haven with her mother, daughter, and stepfather when
    she observed the car ahead of her being driven reck-
    lessly and attempting a U-turn. Adlam stopped her car,
    but the other driver, later identified as the defendant,
    drove his car into the left side of her car, causing it to
    ‘‘jerk . . . .’’ After the initial impact, the defendant’s
    car struck her car at least once more. Adlam was forced
    to reverse her car to get out of the way. Before the
    defendant fled from the scene, Adlam saw him and took
    a photograph of his car’s license plate.
    Adlam called 911 to report the incident. Officers
    Christopher Troche, Marco Correa, and Robert Stratton
    of the New Haven Police Department arrived on the
    scene at approximately 9 p.m. and spoke with Adlam.
    At approximately 9:05 p.m., twenty minutes after the
    accident occurred, the defendant appeared at the scene
    on foot, and Adlam identified him as the driver of the
    other car involved in the accident.
    The officers then approached the defendant. Upon
    speaking with him, they observed him acting aggres-
    sively, slurring his speech, and moving unsteadily. After
    this initial interaction with the police, the defendant
    walked away from the scene but returned about ten
    minutes later. Upon his return, the police placed the
    defendant in handcuffs while Stratton confirmed that
    the defendant’s address matched the registered address
    of the suspect’s vehicle.1 After receiving confirmation,
    Stratton and Troche had the defendant perform three
    field sobriety tests:2 (1) the horizontal gaze nystagmus
    test,3 (2) the walk and turn test,4 and (3) the one leg
    stand test.5 The defendant failed all three field sobri-
    ety tests.
    As a result of failing the field sobriety tests and being
    identified as the driver of the other car involved in the
    accident, the defendant was transported to the police
    station and brought to the ‘‘intoxilyzer room.’’6 Shortly
    after arriving at the station, Correa read the defendant
    his Miranda rights.7 The defendant declined a breath
    analysis test, despite Stratton’s warning that it would
    be deemed a refusal. Although the defendant initially
    agreed to submit to a urine test, he proceeded to get
    angry, raise his voice, and tell the officers to
    ‘‘unshackle’’ him because he was a ‘‘linebacker.’’ Strat-
    ton asked him if he would be ‘‘alright’’ if he removed
    the defendant’s handcuffs. The defendant replied, ‘‘yes,’’
    but remained aggressive, once again stating that he was
    a linebacker. Stratton deemed this behavior as a refusal
    to do the urine test.
    Correa then proceeded to ask the defendant ques-
    tions from an A-44 form,8 including whether he was
    injured, suffered from any medical conditions, and if
    he had taken any drugs. The defendant answered most
    of the questions, despite a reminder from Correa that
    he could refuse to answer. The defendant subsequently
    was charged with operating a motor vehicle while under
    the influence in violation of § 14-227a (1). The state also
    charged the defendant, by way of a part B information,
    with operating a motor vehicle while under the influ-
    ence of intoxicating liquor or drugs as a second offender
    pursuant to § 14-227a (g) (2).
    On February 6, 2020, a jury trial commenced. The
    state called three witnesses to testify: Adlam, Stratton,
    and Troche. After the state rested its case, the defendant
    testified on his own behalf. According to the defendant,
    he had not begun to consume alcohol on May 18, 2019,
    until after he returned home following the incident with
    Adlam. Specifically, the defendant testified that he
    returned home immediately after the accident and
    quickly consumed a ‘‘Jamaican splash,’’ a mixed drink
    that consisted of about ten to twelve ounces of high-
    proof rum, wine, and cranberry juice. After finishing
    the mixed drink, he testified that he smoked a ‘‘spliff’’
    and sipped from a half pint bottle of vodka.
    In response to the defendant’s testimony, the state
    offered, and the court admitted, rebuttal evidence from
    Robert Lockwood, a forensic toxicologist employed at
    the state’s forensics laboratory. Lockwood testified
    about the amount of time after the consumption of
    alcohol that it typically takes for the alcohol to have
    observable effects on an individual’s motor functions
    and typical behaviors associated with certain BAC lev-
    els.
    The jury found the defendant guilty of operating a
    motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol in
    violation of § 14-227a (a) (1). The defendant then
    pleaded guilty to being a second time offender under
    § 14-227a (g) (2). The court, B. Fischer, J., later sen-
    tenced the defendant to two years of incarceration,
    execution suspended after nine months, 120 days of
    which was the mandatory minimum sentence, followed
    by two years of probation. This appeal followed. Addi-
    tional facts and procedural history will be set forth as
    necessary.
    I
    The defendant first claims that there was insufficient
    evidence to support his conviction of operating a motor
    vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor
    in violation of § 14-227a (a) (1). With respect to this
    claim, the defendant makes three related arguments.
    First, the defendant asserts that the only evidence of
    his intoxication while driving was Adlam’s testimony
    and that her testimony was insufficient and lacked cred-
    ibility. Second, the defendant argues that the officers’
    observations and the defendant’s performance on field
    sobriety tests were not sufficient to establish that the
    defendant was intoxicated while driving because they
    did not take place until one-half hour after the defendant
    had stopped driving. Third, the defendant argues that
    Lockwood’s testimony did not establish that the defen-
    dant was intoxicated due to drinking that occurred
    before, rather than after, the defendant stopped driving.
    We are not persuaded that the evidence in the present
    case was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable
    doubt that the defendant operated a motor vehicle while
    under the influence of intoxicating liquor.
    We begin our analysis by setting forth the well estab-
    lished legal principles for assessing an insufficiency of
    the evidence claim. ‘‘In reviewing the sufficiency of the
    evidence to support a criminal conviction we apply a
    [two part] test. First, we construe the evidence in the
    light most favorable to sustaining the verdict. Second,
    we determine whether upon the facts so construed and
    the inferences reasonably drawn therefrom the [finder
    of fact] reasonably could have concluded that the cumu-
    lative force of the evidence established guilt beyond a
    reasonable doubt.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
    State v. Petersen, 
    196 Conn. App. 646
    , 655, 
    230 A.3d 696
    , cert. denied, 
    335 Conn. 921
    , 
    232 A.3d 1104
     (2020).
    ‘‘In particular, before this court may overturn a jury
    verdict for insufficient evidence, it must conclude that
    no reasonable jury could arrive at the conclusion the
    jury did. . . . Although the jury must find every ele-
    ment proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to
    find the defendant guilty of the charged offense . . .
    each of the basic and inferred facts underlying those
    conclusions need not be proved beyond a reasonable
    doubt.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) State v. Rhodes, 
    335 Conn. 226
    , 233, 
    249 A.3d 683
     (2020).
    ‘‘If it is reasonable and logical for the [finder of fact]
    to conclude that a basic fact or an inferred fact is true,
    the [finder of fact] is permitted to consider the fact
    proven and may consider it in combination with other
    proven facts in determining whether the cumulative
    effect of all the evidence proves the defendant guilty
    of all the elements of the crime charged beyond a rea-
    sonable doubt.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
    State v. Petersen, supra, 
    196 Conn. App. 655
    .
    ‘‘[E]stablished case law commands us to review
    claims of evidentiary insufficiency in light of all of the
    evidence [adduced at trial].’’ (Emphasis omitted; inter-
    nal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 656. ‘‘Moreover, even
    improperly admitted evidence may be considered . . .
    since [c]laims of evidentiary insufficiency in criminal
    cases are always addressed independently of claims of
    evidentiary error.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
    State v. Morelli, 
    293 Conn. 147
    , 153, 
    976 A.2d 678
     (2009).
    Turning to our evaluation of the sufficiency of the
    evidence, we begin with the elements of the offense
    for which the defendant was convicted. Section 14-227a
    (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘A person commits the
    offense of operating a motor vehicle while under the
    influence of intoxicating liquor (1) if such person oper-
    ates a motor vehicle . . . while under the influence of
    intoxicating liquor . . . .’’
    The defendant’s insufficiency of the evidence claim
    focuses only on the state’s obligation to demonstrate
    beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was
    under the influence of intoxicating liquor at the time
    he was operating his motor vehicle. We conclude that
    the evidence admitted at trial, including the reasonable
    inferences that the jury was permitted to draw from that
    evidence, was sufficient to establish that the defendant
    operated a motor vehicle while under the influence of
    intoxicating liquor.
    In construing the evidence in the light most favorable
    to sustaining the verdict, we conclude that the jury
    reasonably could have found that the defendant drove
    recklessly and struck Adlam’s car with his vehicle not
    only once but a second time as well. From his reckless
    operation of his motor vehicle, the jury was permitted,
    in conjunction with the evidence that he was visibly
    intoxicated twenty minutes later, to infer that he was
    already under the influence of intoxicating liquor when
    he struck Adlam’s vehicle.
    The defendant then immediately fled the scene after
    the accident. See, e.g., State v. Holley, 
    90 Conn. App. 350
    , 361, 
    877 A.2d 872
     (‘‘[f]light, when unexplained,
    tends to prove a consciousness of guilt’’ (internal quota-
    tion marks omitted)), cert. denied, 
    275 Conn. 929
    , 
    883 A.2d 1249
     (2005). The jury was, of course, free to infer
    that the defendant fled the scene so that the police
    would not arrive to find him intoxicated.
    Additionally, the defendant returned to the scene less
    than twenty minutes after the accident and was visibly
    intoxicated. He slurred his speech, behaved belliger-
    ently, and engaged in drunken behaviors such as stum-
    bling and challenging officers to a push-up contest.
    The defendant also failed three field sobriety tests
    administered within one-half hour after the defendant
    admittedly had been driving and during which he dem-
    onstrated a substantial inability to follow the officers’
    instructions. From these facts alone, the jury reasonably
    could have inferred that the defendant was under the
    influence of alcohol while driving and that his erratic
    operation of his vehicle and behavior at the scene was
    the result of his intoxication.
    The defendant further refused to take a breath analy-
    sis or urine test. Pursuant to § 14-227a (e), the defen-
    dant’s refusal of a breath or urine test is admissible
    evidence from which an adverse inference may be
    drawn that the test would have revealed an elevated
    BAC.
    Even without the state’s expert testimony, the jury
    reasonably could have inferred, based on the short
    period of time between the accident and when the
    defendant reappeared at the scene intoxicated, that his
    intoxication was not reasonably attributable to drinking
    that occurred within the short period of time after he
    ceased driving and when he arrived on foot at the scene
    of the accident. See, e.g., State v. McShea, 
    11 Conn. App. 338
    , 340–41, 
    527 A.2d 1
     (1987) (jury reasonably
    could have inferred defendant was intoxicated while
    driving from ‘‘the time and location of the accident . . .
    the defendant’s admission that he was driving the car;
    the evidence regarding the time sequence and its rela-
    tionship to the defendant’s degree of intoxication’’); see
    also State v. Morelli, 
    supra,
     
    293 Conn. 160
     (despite
    defendant’s alternative explanation for his behavior,
    his failure of field sobriety tests, belligerent attitude,
    questionable driving practices, and refusal of Breatha-
    lyzer test were sufficient to prove beyond reasonable
    doubt that defendant had operated motor vehicle while
    under influence of intoxicating liquor). With Lock-
    wood’s testimony, the jury had additional evidence to
    support the conclusion that, even if the defendant had
    quickly consumed eight or nine drinks when he arrived
    home, he could not have reached the level of intoxica-
    tion he exhibited only thirteen to fifteen minutes later.
    In large measure, the defendant’s insufficiency of the
    evidence claim is premised on his assertion that the
    jury was obligated to credit his testimony that he had
    consumed a significant amount of alcohol after arriving
    home and before returning to the scene of the incident,
    and that this explained his subsequent behavior, includ-
    ing the results of the field sobriety tests. It is the prov-
    ince of the jury, however, to weigh conflicting evidence
    and determine whose testimony to credit. Thus, the jury
    was under no obligation to credit any of the defendant’s
    testimony. See, e.g., State v. Allen, 
    289 Conn. 550
    , 559,
    
    958 A.2d 1214
     (2008). Similarly, the defendant argues
    that ‘‘Adlam’s testimony is suspect’’ because she was
    angry with the defendant for hitting her car and endan-
    gering her family. As with the defendant’s testimony,
    it was within the province of the jury to credit Adlam’s
    testimony and to accept or reject any claim of bias she
    may have had against the defendant.
    In support of his assertion that the state failed to
    prove that he was under the influence of intoxicating
    liquor while operating his motor vehicle, the defendant
    relies largely on State v. DeCoster, 
    147 Conn. 502
    , 
    162 A.2d 704
     (1960). DeCoster, however, is readily distin-
    guishable from the present case.
    In DeCoster, a police officer found the defendant’s
    car stopped on a street in New Haven with the key in
    the ignition but the engine turned off. Id., 504. The
    defendant was slumped at the steering wheel of the
    car. Id. There was visible damage to the defendant’s
    car, and four nearby road signs were knocked over. Id.
    On the basis of these facts, the defendant was arrested
    and later found guilty of operating a motor vehicle while
    under the influence of intoxicating liquor. Id., 503–504.
    On appeal, however, our Supreme Court reversed the
    judgment of conviction on insufficiency grounds, con-
    cluding that the state had failed to prove that the defen-
    dant was under the influence of liquor at the time he
    was driving. See id., 505. The court found that ‘‘[n]o
    one had seen him operating the car, and there was no
    evidence to show how long it had been standing in the
    place where it was found. Even though [a fact finder]
    might infer that the defendant’s car had struck the signs
    at the traffic circle, there was no evidence whatever to
    show when or how the collision occurred. Id., 504–505.
    The court concluded that, ‘‘[i]n the absence of any evi-
    dence as to the time when the defendant last operated
    his car, the conclusion of the trial court that he violated
    the statute was unwarranted and invaded the realm of
    speculation and conjecture.’’ Id., 505.
    In the present case, and unlike DeCoster, Adlam testi-
    fied about how and when the collision between her and
    the defendant occurred. As established through Adlam,
    Troche, and Stratton’s testimony, the defendant was
    admittedly driving at 8:47 p.m. and visibly intoxicated
    less than twenty minutes later at 9:05 p.m. The defen-
    dant failed field sobriety tests approximately thirty
    minutes after the accident. Furthermore, Lockwood tes-
    tified that it would be unlikely for an individual to
    engage in the behavior the defendant exhibited within
    only thirteen to fifteen minutes after beginning to con-
    sume alcohol, even if that individual had quickly drank
    eight to nine drinks.
    In sum, we are not persuaded that the evidence in
    the present case was insufficient to prove that the defen-
    dant operated a motor vehicle while under the influence
    of intoxicating liquor. We therefore conclude that the
    jury reasonably could have found the defendant guilty
    beyond a reasonable doubt of violating § 14-227a (a) (1).
    II
    The defendant next claims that the trial court improp-
    erly admitted expert testimony regarding the likely BAC
    of an individual who is slurring his or her speech. The
    defendant asserts that this testimony was tantamount
    to testimony on the defendant’s BAC and, thus, violated
    § 14-227a (c), which prohibits the admission of such
    testimony without the defendant’s consent in a case in
    which the defendant is charged with violating § 14-227a
    (a) (1).9 The defendant, in seeking to prevail on this
    claim, argues that the claim is preserved. The defendant
    argues in the alternative that, if the claim is not pre-
    served, he is entitled to prevail under State v. Golding,
    
    213 Conn. 233
    , 239–40, 
    567 A.2d 823
     (1989), as modified
    by In re Yasiel R., 
    317 Conn. 773
    , 781, 
    120 A.3d 1188
    (2015), or pursuant to the plain error doctrine. We dis-
    agree with the defendant that his claim was preserved
    at trial. We also conclude that his claim is not entitled
    to review under Golding because it fails to satisfy Gold-
    ing’s second prong. Finally, we are unpersuaded that
    he is entitled to prevail under the plain error doctrine.
    Before turning to the relevant facts and procedural
    history, it is necessary to set forth the following legal
    principles. Section 14-227a (a) establishes two different
    ways an individual can commit the offense of operating
    a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicat-
    ing liquor: ‘‘[a] person commits the offense of operating
    a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicat-
    ing liquor or any drug or both if such person operates
    a motor vehicle (1) while under the influence of intox-
    icating liquor or any drug or both, or (2) while such
    person has an elevated blood alcohol content.’’ ‘‘We
    previously have described . . . § 14-227a (a) (1) as the
    ‘behavioral’ subdivision and § [14-227a] (a) (2) as the
    ‘per se’ subdivision.’’ State v. Longo, 
    106 Conn. App. 701
    , 705 n.5, 
    943 A.2d 488
     (2008).
    Section 14-227a (c) provides: ‘‘In any prosecution for
    a violation of subdivision (1) of subsection (a) of this
    section, reliable evidence respecting the amount of
    alcohol in the defendant’s blood or urine at the time of
    the alleged offense, as shown by a chemical analysis
    of the defendant’s blood, breath or urine, otherwise
    admissible under subsection (b) of this section, shall
    be admissible only at the request of the defendant.’’
    Thus, under § 14-227a (c), when an individual is prose-
    cuted under the behavioral subdivision of the statute,
    the defendant’s BAC is admissible ‘‘only at the request
    of the defendant.’’
    The following additional facts and procedural history,
    which are undisputed in the record, are relevant to our
    resolution of the defendant’s claim. After the defense
    rested, the state called Lockwood, a forensic toxicolo-
    gist, as a rebuttal witness to testify as to the time it
    takes for an individual to exhibit effects on their motor
    functions after drinking alcohol and the typical BAC of
    an individual exhibiting slurred speech. Prior to the
    state’s offer of proof, defense counsel made a general
    objection to this testimony. Specifically, defense coun-
    sel stated: ‘‘I do have a general objection to the testi-
    mony, and my argument is that it’s not relevant on this
    rebuttal. This—this expert can’t testify to any definite
    conclusions . . . .’’10
    In response, the court stated, ‘‘[a]ll right. There has
    been evidence from the defendant that he did—that he
    just testified . . . that he consumed large amounts of
    alcoholic beverages in a very short period of time. I
    will allow the doctor to come up here . . . .’’
    The court then permitted the state to make an offer
    of proof outside the presence of the jury. During the
    state’s offer of proof, Lockwood was presented a hypo-
    thetical and asked: ‘‘Given those facts, do you have an
    opinion regarding—at the rate of consumption, the rate
    of absorption of alcohol into the body given the facts
    I’ve asked you to assume, and the effects one could
    expect from the—on the human body of that much
    alcohol in that time period?’’ Lockwood then testified
    that the average time for an individual to begin to exhibit
    the effects of alcohol is between thirty and forty minutes
    after consumption. The expert was also asked, ‘‘when
    one is stumbling and slurring their words, do you have
    an opinion as to what BAC would be associated with
    that?’’ The expert replied, ‘‘[b]ased on my training and
    experience, when you have an individual with slurred
    speech, you are around a BAC of 0.16 or 0.17.’’
    Following the state’s offer of proof, the defendant
    maintained his original objection to the general rele-
    vancy of the evidence and ‘‘lack of definite conclu-
    sions.’’ He did not otherwise explain the grounds for his
    objection. Specifically, the court asked the defendant
    whether he maintained his objection based on what he
    heard. The defendant responded, ‘‘yes.’’ The court then
    stated, ‘‘[y]ou still do? Okay. I’m going to overrule the
    objection.’’
    Lockwood then proceeded to testify in front of the
    jury as to his opinion on the amount of time it would
    take an individual who quickly drank eight or nine
    drinks to reach a level of intoxication that would visibly
    effect their motor functions.11 Lockwood also opined
    on the typical BAC of an individual with slurred speech.
    Finally, Lockwood testified that it is not reasonably
    probable that an individual would be displaying signs
    of intoxication within thirteen to fifteen minutes from
    beginning to consume alcohol even if that individual
    had quickly drank eight or nine drinks.
    A
    We begin by reviewing whether the defendant’s claim
    that the admission of Lockwood’s testimony violated
    § 14-227a (c) was preserved. It plainly was not.
    ‘‘[T]he standard for the preservation of a claim alleg-
    ing an improper evidentiary ruling at trial is well settled.
    This court is not bound to consider claims of law not
    made at the trial. . . . In order to preserve an eviden-
    tiary ruling for review, trial counsel must object prop-
    erly. . . . In objecting to evidence, counsel must prop-
    erly articulate the basis of the objection so as to apprise
    the trial court of the precise nature of the objection
    and its real purpose, in order to form an adequate basis
    for a reviewable ruling. . . . Once counsel states the
    authority and ground of [the] objection, any appeal will
    be limited to the ground asserted. . . . We have
    explained that these requirements are not simply for-
    malities. [A] party cannot present a case to the trial
    court on one theory and then seek appellate relief on
    a different one . . . . For this court to . . . consider
    [a] claim on the basis of a specific legal ground not
    raised during trial would amount to trial by ambuscade,
    unfair both to the [court] and to the opposing party.’’
    (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quota-
    tion marks omitted.) State v. Miranda, 
    327 Conn. 451
    ,
    464–65, 
    174 A.3d 770
     (2018).
    The defendant simply objected on the grounds of
    relevancy and on the ability of the witness to testify
    about ‘‘definite conclusions.’’ He did not alert the court
    or opposing party to the basis of the objection now
    raised on appeal. The defendant did not cite to § 14-
    227a (c) or otherwise inform the trial court of his claim
    that admitting the proffered evidence without his con-
    sent would violate a statutory provision. See State v.
    Forrest, 
    216 Conn. 139
    , 146, 
    578 A.2d 1066
     (1990) (‘‘the
    defendant, by objecting to the state’s questions on rele-
    vancy grounds, failed to preserve properly [the statu-
    tory violation claim] he has raised on appeal’’).12
    In sum, the defendant never articulated to the trial
    court the claim he now raises on appeal. Accordingly,
    we agree with the state that the claim is unpreserved.
    B
    We next turn to the defendant’s argument that, even
    if his claim is not preserved, he is entitled to prevail
    pursuant to Golding. The defendant, likely recognizing
    that Golding review is limited to claims of a constitu-
    tional magnitude, argues that the admission of the evi-
    dence violated the defendant’s due process rights
    because it violated the statutory prohibition contained
    in § 14-227a (c). We are not persuaded that a trial court’s
    admission of evidence implicates anything more than
    an evidentiary or statutory claim. Thus, the claim fails
    under the second prong of Golding because it is not
    constitutional in nature.
    Pursuant to Golding, as modified by In re Yasiel R.,
    supra, 
    317 Conn. 781
    , ‘‘a defendant can prevail on a
    claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only
    if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record
    is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2)
    the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the
    violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitu-
    tional violation . . . exists and . . . deprived the
    defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless
    error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harm-
    lessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond
    a reasonable doubt.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quota-
    tion marks omitted.) State v. Police, 
    343 Conn. 274
    , 288,
    
    273 A.3d 211
     (2022).
    ‘‘The first two [prongs of Golding] involve a determi-
    nation of whether the claim is reviewable; the second
    two . . . involve a determination of whether the defen-
    dant may prevail [on the merits]. . . . Thus, Golding
    review of an unpreserved constitutional claim is avail-
    able provided that the defendant can present a record
    that is [adequate] for review and affirmatively [demon-
    strate] that his claim is indeed a violation of a fundamen-
    tal constitutional right.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quo-
    tation marks omitted.) State v. Grant, 
    154 Conn. App. 293
    , 307, 
    112 A.3d 175
     (2014), cert. denied, 
    315 Conn. 928
    , 
    109 A.3d 923
     (2015).
    ‘‘[T]he defendant can not raise a constitutional claim
    by attaching a constitutional label to a purely eviden-
    tiary claim or by asserting merely that a strained con-
    nection exists between the evidentiary claim and a fun-
    damental constitutional right. . . . Thus, [o]nce
    identified, unpreserved evidentiary claims masquerad-
    ing as constitutional claims will be summarily
    [rejected]. . . . We previously have stated that the
    admissibility of evidence is a matter of state law and
    unless there is a resultant denial of fundamental fairness
    or the denial of a specific constitutional right, no consti-
    tutional issue is involved.’’ (Internal quotation marks
    omitted.) State v. Gilbert I., 
    106 Conn. App. 793
    , 796,
    
    944 A.2d 353
    , cert. denied, 
    287 Conn. 913
    , 
    950 A.2d 1289
     (2008).
    Though the defendant asserts that the admission of
    evidence violated his due process rights, he fails to brief
    or otherwise demonstrate that this alleged error was
    so crucial, critical, and highly significant that he was
    denied a fair trial.13 See, e.g., State v. Turner, 
    334 Conn. 660
    , 674, 
    224 A.3d 129
     (2020) (evidentiary error must
    be crucial, critical, and highly significant to degree that
    defendant was denied a fair trial in order to rise to
    constitutional error). The defendant has failed to cite
    to a single case from Connecticut, or elsewhere, that
    holds that the admission of BAC testing in a behavioral
    case violates the defendant’s right to due process. More-
    over, the defendant has not argued that, if the legislature
    had chosen not to include in § 14-227a (c) the prohibi-
    tion on admissibility of the defendant’s BAC, then the
    due process clause itself would have barred the admis-
    sion of a defendant’s BAC level in a behavioral case.
    Because we conclude that the defendant’s claim is
    not constitutional in nature, it fails under the second
    prong of Golding. Accordingly, we decline to review it.
    C
    Finally, we address whether the defendant is entitled
    to prevail on his statutory claim under the plain error
    doctrine. See Practice Book § 60-5. We do not agree
    that Lockwood’s testimony regarding the expected BAC
    of an individual exhibiting slurred speech, which the
    defendant exhibited, was plain error under the circum-
    stances of this case.
    We begin by setting forth the relevant legal principles.
    ‘‘[I]f a claim is unpreserved . . . an appellate court may
    in the interests of justice notice plain error not brought
    to the attention of the trial court. . . . Application of
    the plain error doctrine is nevertheless reserved for
    truly extraordinary situations [in which] the existence
    of the error is so obvious that it affects the fairness
    and integrity of and public confidence in the judicial
    proceedings. . . . [Thus, a] defendant cannot prevail
    under [the plain error doctrine] . . . unless he demon-
    strates that the claimed error is both so clear and so
    harmful that a failure to reverse the judgment would
    result in manifest injustice.’’ (Citations omitted; internal
    quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brett B., 
    186 Conn. App. 563
    , 603, 
    200 A.3d 706
     (2018), cert. denied, 
    330 Conn. 961
    , 
    199 A.3d 560
     (2019).
    There is a two step framework for evaluating claims
    under the plain error doctrine. ‘‘First, we must deter-
    mine whether the trial court in fact committed an error
    and, if it did, whether that error was indeed plain in
    the sense that it is patent [or] readily discernable on
    the face of a factually adequate record, [and] also . . .
    obvious in the sense of not debatable. . . . [T]his
    inquiry entails a relatively high standard, under which
    it is not enough for the defendant simply to demonstrate
    that his position is correct. Rather, the party seeking
    plain error review must demonstrate that the claimed
    impropriety was so clear, obvious and indisputable as
    to warrant the extraordinary remedy of reversal.’’
    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Darryl W.,
    
    303 Conn. 353
    , 373, 
    33 A.3d 239
     (2012).
    In the present case, the trial court did not admit direct
    evidence of the defendant’s BAC. Lockwood testified
    only about the BAC of a hypothetical individual who
    exhibited the same behaviors that the defendant had
    exhibited. On cross-examination, defense counsel made
    clear through his questioning of Lockwood that he was
    not testifying about the defendant’s BAC and that the
    state’s scenarios were purely hypothetical.14 Although
    Lockwood’s testimony may have implicitly suggested
    what the defendant’s BAC level may have been, if it
    had been tested, we cannot say that the alleged error
    constituted ‘‘impropriety . . . so clear, obvious and
    indisputable as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of
    reversal.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) 
    Id.
    In reaching this conclusion, we do not mean to sug-
    gest that the defendant could not have prevailed on this
    claim if it had been preserved properly and brought to
    the attention of the trial court. Although we do not
    conclude that the admission of this evidence is such a
    clear and obvious error that it results in a manifest
    injustice to the defendant, we are nevertheless troubled
    by the state’s introduction of Lockwood’s testimony
    regarding blood alcohol content. In State v. Lopez, 
    177 Conn. App. 651
    , 669–70, 
    173 A.3d 485
    , cert. denied, 
    327 Conn. 989
    , 
    175 A.3d 563
     (2017), we made it clear that
    evidence pertaining to the expected BAC of a hypotheti-
    cal individual exhibiting the same behavior as the defen-
    dant is problematic at best.
    In State v. Lopez, supra, 
    177 Conn. App. 669
    , the
    state elicited testimony of the blood alcohol level of
    a hypothetical individual based on behaviors that the
    defendant had exhibited, such as his performance on
    the field sobriety tests. We stated: ‘‘Although we recog-
    nize that the language of the statute refers to blood
    alcohol content as shown by a chemical analysis of the
    defendant’s blood, breath or urine . . . and that the
    blood alcohol content evidence in this case was not
    derived from such a chemical analysis, we do not
    believe that, at the time the legislature passed the stat-
    ute, it contemplated that there would be any other way
    to demonstrate the concentration of alcohol in some-
    one’s blood except by chemical analysis. Thus, as a
    matter of statutory interpretation, it would lead to
    absurd and unworkable results to interpret the statute
    to permit evidence of the defendant’s blood alcohol
    content derived from a less reliable, extrapolated analy-
    sis, such as the one made here, while prohibiting blood
    alcohol content evidence derived from a more reliable
    procedure, i.e., chemical testing of the defendant’s
    blood, breath, or urine . . . . Permitting evidence in
    this behavioral prosecution case of a blood alcohol
    content derived from a subjective interpretation of the
    defendant’s performance on standard field sobriety
    tests, without using any of the approved methods and
    procedures, does great violence to the intent of the
    statute. . . . Given the potential unreliability of blood
    alcohol content evidence that is based on this method,
    and given that [w]e cannot ignore the heightened cre-
    dence juries tend to give scientific evidence . . . the
    risk that this type of evidence might have had an
    improper impact on the jury and on the result of the
    trial, without the defendant’s being permitted to engage
    in the scope of unfettered cross-examination to which
    he was entitled, is too great.’’ (Citations omitted; foot-
    note omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) 
    Id.,
    669–73.
    We maintain this view and caution the state against
    seeking to admit opinion testimony concerning an indi-
    vidual’s BAC, whether it be hypothetical or otherwise, in
    behavioral cases under § 14-227a (a) (1). Such evidence
    implicitly relating to the defendant’s BAC in behavioral
    cases violates the spirit if not the letter of § 14-227a
    (c). Nevertheless, we conclude that the defendant failed
    to demonstrate the existence of plain error.
    III
    The defendant next claims that the trial court violated
    his sixth amendment right to confrontation by unduly
    restricting his cross-examination of Lockwood regard-
    ing the effects that additional ingested substances may
    have on the rate at which alcohol will begin to cause
    observable effects on an individual’s behavior. The state
    responds that the defendant failed to lay an adequate
    foundation to permit him to cross-examine Lockwood
    regarding the effects of additional substances because
    there was no evidence of what additional substances,
    if any, he had ingested. We agree with the state.
    The following facts are relevant to this claim. At trial,
    Lockwood was permitted to testify as an expert about
    the amount of time after the consumption of alcohol
    that it typically takes for the alcohol to have observable
    effects on an individual’s motor functions and the typi-
    cal BAC associated with slurred speech. The state asked
    Lockwood several hypothetical questions comprised of
    facts mirroring those in the present case. The first hypo-
    thetical described a man who had consumed a large
    volume of alcohol in a very short amount of time. The
    state asked Lockwood if he had an opinion on the speed
    at which an individual would exhibit the effects of intox-
    ication after alcohol consumption commenced. Lock-
    wood responded that it would take the individual in the
    hypothetical scenario thirty to forty minutes to become
    observably intoxicated. The second hypothetical
    assumed that an individual had slurred speech, and the
    state asked whether there is a BAC that is associated
    with that behavior. Lockwood responded that slurred
    speech usually suggests a BAC of 0.16 or 0.17. Next,
    the state asked how many alcoholic beverages (drinks)
    an individual would have to consume to reach a BAC
    of 0.16 or higher, assuming that the individual weighed
    190 pounds. Lockwood responded that the individual
    would need to consume eight or nine drinks. The state
    next posed a hypothetical in which an individual was
    stumbling and slurring words at approximately 9:05
    p.m. The state asked what time the individual likely
    began drinking to have reached a BAC of 0.16 at 9:05
    p.m. Lockwood estimated they likely would have
    needed to start drinking at about 8:35 p.m. The state’s
    final question was whether it was reasonably probable
    that an individual who quickly drank eight or nine drinks
    would exhibit slurred speech within thirteen to fifteen
    minutes of consuming those drinks. Lockwood
    responded that it was not reasonably probable for this
    to occur.
    The defendant sought to cross-examine Lockwood
    on whether additional ingested substances could affect
    how quickly an individual would become visibly intoxi-
    cated from alcohol. The following colloquy took place
    between Lockwood, defense counsel, the prosecutor,
    and the court:
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Okay. What about adding other
    substances to that alcohol?
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: Could you be more specific?
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Like, if [the defendant] said he
    smoked a spliff while he was drinking, would that
    enhance the effects?
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: Pardon me, when you say a spliff, you
    mean marijuana?
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Marijuana, yes.
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: Okay.
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Would that enhance it?
    ‘‘[The Prosecutor]: I’m going to object at this point,
    Your Honor. There’s been no evidence what a spliff is
    before this jury or this court as to what that is.
    ‘‘The Court: Yeah, there hasn’t been any evidence of
    what a . . .
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: A spliff. He smoked—he smoked
    something. He said he was smoking something at the—15
    ‘‘The Court: Yeah, but there’s no evidence, counsel,
    that that was any—you know—illegal substance or mar-
    ijuana. Unless I missed it, I didn’t hear that. Do you
    agree with that or disagree with that?
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: I disagree. I think a spliff in gen-
    eral is a substance and that he could enhance—
    ‘‘The Court: Well, there was no evidence of what the
    substance was. My question is . . . I’m not aware that
    that was ever—a question was ever asked of [the defen-
    dant] of—you know . . . what [a spliff] . . . contains.
    I’m not aware of that. Tell me if I’m wrong.
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Right, I didn’t ask him what it
    contains.
    ‘‘The Court: All right, all right. So, I’m not gonna . . .
    it’s not in evidence . . . what is in a spliff.
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: But he did smoke something, so
    I would like to ask this expert if that could enhance
    the effects.
    ‘‘The Court: Well, I mean, it could’ve been a Camel
    cigarette, I don’t know. It could’ve been an Ashton cigar,
    you know. Do you follow me? In other words, there’s
    no evidence that it was an illegal substance, is what
    I’m trying to say . . . so, I’m not going to allow that—
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Anything about smoking?
    ‘‘The Court: Not with this—I mean, if you want to
    argue this, you could do that in closing argument
    . . . .’’ (Footnote added.)
    We begin our analysis by setting forth the applicable
    standard of review and the relevant legal principles for
    assessing a confrontation clause claim. ‘‘The right of
    an accused to effectively cross-examine an adverse wit-
    ness is embodied in the confrontation clause of the
    sixth amendment. . . . The general rule is that restric-
    tions on the scope of cross-examination are within the
    sound discretion of the trial judge . . . but this discre-
    tion comes into play only after the defendant has been
    permitted cross-examination sufficient to satisfy the
    sixth amendment. . . . The constitutional standard is
    met when defense counsel is permitted to expose to
    the jury the facts from which [the] jurors, as the sole
    triers of fact and credibility, could appropriately draw
    inferences relating to the reliability of the witness. . . .
    Indeed, if testimony of a witness is to remain in the
    case as a basis for conviction, the defendant must be
    afforded a reasonable opportunity to reveal any infirmi-
    ties that cast doubt on the reliability of that testimony.
    The defendant’s right to cross-examine a witness, how-
    ever, is not absolute. . . . Therefore, a claim that the
    trial court unduly restricted cross-examination gener-
    ally involves a two-pronged analysis: whether the afore-
    mentioned constitutional standard has been met, and,
    if so, whether the court nonetheless abused its discre-
    tion . . . .’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted;
    internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Clark, 
    260 Conn. 813
    , 826–27, 
    801 A.2d 718
     (2002).
    ‘‘In order to comport with the constitutional stan-
    dards embodied in the confrontation clause, the trial
    court must allow a defendant to expose to the jury facts
    from which [the] jurors, as the sole triers of fact and
    credibility, could appropriately draw inferences relating
    to the reliability of the witness. . . . We have empha-
    sized in numerous decisions, however, that the confron-
    tation clause does not give the defendant the right to
    engage in unrestricted cross-examination. . . . A
    defendant may elicit only relevant evidence through
    cross-examination. . . . The court determines
    whether the evidence sought on cross-examination is
    relevant by determining whether that evidence renders
    the existence of [other facts] either certain or more
    probable.’’ (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks
    omitted.) State v. Crespo, 
    303 Conn. 589
    , 610–11, 
    35 A.3d 243
     (2012).
    ‘‘The trial court has wide discretion to determine the
    relevancy of evidence and [e]very reasonable presump-
    tion should be made in favor of the correctness of the
    court’s ruling in determining whether there has been
    an abuse of discretion. . . . The proffering party bears
    the burden of establishing the relevance of the offered
    testimony. Unless such a proper foundation is estab-
    lished, the evidence . . . is irrelevant.’’ (Citation omit-
    ted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Davis,
    
    298 Conn. 1
    , 23, 
    1 A.3d 76
     (2010).
    ‘‘To be admissible, [expert] testimony must comply
    with the requirements for reliability and relevance
    established in State v. Porter, 
    241 Conn. 57
    , 
    698 A.2d 739
     (1997) (en banc), cert. denied, 
    523 U.S. 1058
    , 
    118 S. Ct. 1384
    , 
    140 L. Ed. 2d 645
     (1998).’’ Kairon v. Burn-
    ham, 
    120 Conn. App. 291
    , 292, 
    991 A.2d 675
    , cert. denied,
    
    297 Conn. 906
    , 
    995 A.2d 634
     (2010). ‘‘To be helpful, an
    expert’s opinion testimony must aid the fact finder in
    resolving an issue in the case and have some basis in
    fact.’’ Weaver v. McKnight, 
    313 Conn. 393
    , 410, 
    97 A.3d 920
     (2014).
    In the present case, we conclude that the trial court
    did not abuse its discretion in determining that the
    defendant failed to establish a proper foundation to
    cross-examine Lockwood regarding whether other sub-
    stances could have affected the rate at which an individ-
    ual can become visibly intoxicated from alcohol. See,
    e.g., State v. Davis, 
    supra,
     
    298 Conn. 24
    –25 (because
    defendant’s evidentiary foundation was insufficient,
    preclusion of irrelevant evidence did not violate defen-
    dant’s right to confrontation). The defendant testified
    that he smoked a ‘‘spliff,’’ but the defendant did not
    define what a ‘‘spliff’’ was or what substances it con-
    tained. Because the defendant did not testify what a
    ‘‘spliff’’ contained, the defendant could have been refer-
    encing marijuana, other psychotropic drugs, a combina-
    tion of the two, or some other substance. Without this
    evidentiary foundation, any opinion regarding the effect
    of those substances in combination with alcohol on the
    rate of intoxication simply lacks any relevance or ‘‘fit’’
    in the case. See State v. Porter, supra, 
    241 Conn. 65
    (‘‘fit’’ means the ‘‘proposed scientific testimony must
    be demonstrably relevant to the facts of the particular
    case in which it is offered, and not simply be valid in
    the abstract’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)). The
    defendant had the opportunity when he testified to lay
    the factual foundation as to what substances he
    ingested, but he failed to do so.
    Accordingly, the trial court did not abuse its discre-
    tion in determining that Lockwood’s testimony lacked
    relevance to the case. Accordingly, the court’s decision
    to preclude it on that basis did not violate the defen-
    dant’s sixth amendment right to confrontation.
    IV
    The defendant’s final claim is that the court improp-
    erly denied the defendant’s motion to suppress certain
    statements that he made to the police (1) at the scene
    of the accident and (2) in the intoxilyzer room. In regard
    to the statements he made at the scene of the accident,
    the defendant claims that, after he was placed in hand-
    cuffs, he was in custody for purposes of Miranda and
    had not been advised of his Miranda rights at that time.
    As for the statements made in the intoxilyzer room, the
    defendant claims that, although he had been advised
    of his Miranda rights prior to giving these statements,
    the court should have suppressed the statements
    because he never expressly or impliedly waived his
    Miranda rights. The state responds that the defendant’s
    claims are unreviewable because the record is inade-
    quate for review.16 Alternatively, the state argues that
    the defendant was not subjected to custodial interroga-
    tion at the scene of the accident and that the defendant’s
    conduct in the intoxilyzer room ‘‘evinced a knowing
    and intelligent waiver of his right to remain silent
    . . . .’’ We agree that the record is inadequate to review
    whether the defendant (1) was subjected to custodial
    interrogation at the scene of the accident and (2) waived
    his Miranda rights in the intoxilyzer room.
    The following additional procedural history and facts
    are relevant to our resolution of this claim. On January
    10, 2020, the defendant filed a motion to suppress. The
    motion to suppress asserted that the defendant, while
    in custody, made inculpatory statements to law enforce-
    ment officers, the statements were made without a valid
    Miranda waiver, the statements were involuntary, and
    that the statements were tainted by a prior illegality.
    On February 4, 2020, the defendant filed an addendum
    to his motion to suppress, requesting the suppression
    of certain statements that were made by the defendant
    after he was handcuffed. The addendum specified
    which statements the defendant was moving to sup-
    press but did not reference facts in support of his claim.
    The statements specified in the addendum were limited
    to (1) ‘‘[the] defendant’s responses to police asking him
    if he was driving,’’ (2) ‘‘[the] defendant’s responses to
    police asking him where his car was,’’ (3) ‘‘[the] defen-
    dant’s responses to police asking him what ‘‘RDW
    Works’’ is,’’ and (4) ‘‘[the] defendant’s answer of ‘13’ to
    the postarrest questions . . . .’’
    It is important to note that the record is extremely
    opaque with respect to the manner in which the motion
    to suppress was adjudicated. The court did not hold an
    evidentiary hearing prior to ruling on the motion. No
    witnesses testified in support of or in opposition to the
    motion to suppress. The record also does not memorial-
    ize an agreement between the parties on the procedure
    to be followed for litigating the motion to suppress.
    From our review of the record, it appears that the court
    and the parties agreed that the court would review the
    police body camera footage and base its decision solely
    on what it could determine from these videos.
    On February 5, 2020, the court, B. Fischer J., asked
    the parties to address the defendant’s motion to sup-
    press. In support of the motion, defense counsel argued:
    ‘‘I am specifically asking for these statements after he
    was handcuffed because, at that point, he was in cus-
    tody, and these are questions from the police, so this
    is interrogation. He did not waive his Miranda rights,
    did not sign the form at the station.’’ The prosecutor
    responded: ‘‘[T]he defendant was not in custody at that
    point. It was a Terry stop,17 and it was based on reason-
    able and interpretable facts. The defendant had already
    walked away once, and, based on his behavior, using
    handcuffs was the least restrictive means in order to
    keep him on the scene. Therefore, the state would
    request to have those statements be admissible.’’ (Foot-
    note added.)
    Immediately after this exchange, the court stated the
    following, which comprises its entire decision with
    respect to the motion to suppress: ‘‘I’m going to deny
    the defendant’s motion to suppress . . . and I’ll just
    recite some of our case law on this issue. General,
    on-the-scene questioning of citizens in the fact-finding
    process is not affected by Miranda holdings. It is an
    act of responsible citizenship for individuals to give
    whatever information they may have to aid in law
    enforcement. In such situations, the compelling atmo-
    sphere inherent in the process of in-custody interroga-
    tion is not necessarily present. An officer may ask the
    detainee a moderate number of questions to determine
    his identity and to try to obtain information confirming
    or dispelling the officer’s suspicions, but the detainee
    is not obliged to respond, and, unless the detainee’s
    answers provide the officer with probable cause to
    arrest him—so forth. . . .
    ‘‘[A]nd this is the case of State v. Mucha, [
    137 Conn. App. 173
    , 189, 
    47 A.3d 931
    , cert. denied, 
    307 Conn. 912
    ,
    
    53 A.3d 998
     (2012)] . . . that the routine investigatory
    stage of a motor vehicle accident is a noncustodial
    situation and, thus—that statements made by a defen-
    dant to a police officer in such circumstances are admis-
    sible regardless of whether the police officer gave the
    defendant his Miranda warning. The court, moreover,
    has concluded that conducting a field sobriety test does
    not place a suspect in custody for the purposes of
    Miranda. So, the questions the police asked, Miranda
    warning was not required based on what I observed in
    the body cam . . . .’’
    The court made no factual findings beyond its asser-
    tion that ‘‘the questions the police asked, Miranda
    warning was not required based on what I observed in
    the body cam . . . .’’ Although the court’s statement
    suggests that the trial court relied primarily on the body
    camera footage in deciding to deny the motion to sup-
    press, the record is unclear as to when and how the
    body camera footage18 was admitted into evidence and
    reviewed in relation to the motion to suppress.19 More
    importantly, the court did not make any explicit findings
    regarding the content of the video. The court later
    signed the transcript of its brief oral ruling.
    Practice Book § 61-10 (a) provides: ‘‘It is the responsi-
    bility of the appellant to provide an adequate record
    for review. The appellant shall determine whether the
    entire record is complete, correct and otherwise per-
    fected for presentation on appeal.’’ Practice Book § 64-
    1 (a) provides in relevant part: ‘‘The trial court shall
    state its decision either orally or in writing . . . in rul-
    ing on motions to suppress . . . . The court’s decision
    shall encompass its conclusion as to each claim of law
    raised by the parties and the factual basis therefor.
    . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) Subsection (b) of § 64-1 further
    provides that, if the trial court fails to comply with
    these requirements, ‘‘the appellant may file with the
    appellate clerk a notice that the decision has not been
    filed in compliance with subsection (a).’’
    Additionally, it is axiomatic that ‘‘[t]he proper proce-
    dure by which an appellant may ask the trial court to
    provide the factual and legal basis for a ruling, or to
    address a matter that it has overlooked in its decision,
    is to file a motion for articulation. See Practice Book
    § 66-5.20 A motion seeking articulation is appropriate in
    cases in which the trial court has failed to state the
    basis of a decision . . . [or] to clarify the legal basis
    of a ruling . . . [and it is the proper procedural vehicle]
    to ask the trial judge to rule on an overlooked matter.’’
    (Footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.)
    State v. Bennett, 
    101 Conn. App. 76
    , 81, 
    920 A.2d 312
    (2007).
    In the present case, the defendant filed a motion to
    suppress statements that the defendant made to the
    police both at the scene of the incident and while in
    the intoxilyzer room. The trial court’s brief oral ruling,
    however, addressed only the admissibility of the state-
    ments made at the scene of the incident. The oral ruling
    did not set forth the facts the court found established
    in making the ultimate determination that Miranda
    warnings were not required at the scene of the accident
    before the officers questioned the defendant. Although
    the trial court determined that a ‘‘Miranda warning was
    not required based on what [was] observed in the body
    cam,’’ the trial court did not specify whether the defen-
    dant was in custody or subject to police interrogation.21
    Furthermore, the court altogether did not address,
    either factually or legally, the statements made by the
    defendant in the intoxilyzer room, including whether
    the defendant had waived his Miranda rights.
    Despite the court’s failure to include in its oral deci-
    sion a ‘‘conclusion as to each claim of law raised by
    the parties and the factual basis therefor’’; Practice
    Book § 64-1 (a); the defendant did not file a notice of
    noncompliance with the appellate clerk. In addition,
    the defendant failed to seek an articulation pursuant
    to Practice Book § 66-5.
    The defendant argues that, if we find the record to
    be inadequate for review of his claim, we ‘‘should
    remand the matter to the trial court for further articula-
    tion.’’ In doing so, the defendant relies on Practice Book
    § 61-10 (b), which provides: ‘‘The failure of any party
    on appeal to seek articulation pursuant to Section 66-
    5 shall not be the sole ground upon which the court
    declines to review any issue or claim on appeal. If the
    court determines that articulation of the trial court deci-
    sion is appropriate, it may, pursuant to Section 60-5,
    order articulation by the trial court within a specified
    time period.’’ (Emphasis added.)
    We decline the defendant’s invitation to order an
    articulation in this case because his failure to seek an
    articulation is not the sole ground on which we decline
    to review this claim. The defendant failed to exercise
    at least two avenues to meet his obligation to provide
    an adequate record for appellate review of his claim.
    Furthermore, we note that this appeal was filed on
    October 26, 2020, and it has been more than two years
    since the court issued its oral ruling on the motion to
    suppress. This lengthy passage of time would undoubt-
    edly frustrate its ability to remedy the legal and factual
    lacunas relating to its decision on the motion. Addition-
    ally, because there was no evidentiary hearing, the court
    would not have the benefit of any transcripts to review
    when attempting to comply with an articulation order.
    ‘‘Our role is not to guess at possibilities, but to review
    claims based on a complete factual record developed
    by a trial court. . . . Without the necessary factual and
    legal conclusions furnished by the trial court, either on
    its own or in response to a proper motion for articula-
    tion, any decision made by us respecting [a] claim would
    be entirely speculative.’’ (Internal quotation marks
    omitted.) Shobeiri v. Richards, 
    104 Conn. App. 293
    ,
    296, 
    933 A.2d 728
     (2007). Because the defendant failed
    to seek a proper memorandum of decision addressing
    all the legal arguments he raised in his motion to sup-
    press or to file a motion for articulation, the record is
    inadequate to review the defendant’s claim that he was
    subjected to custodial interrogation at the scene of the
    accident and that he did not expressly or impliedly
    waive his Miranda rights after they were read to him
    in the intoxilyzer room.
    The judgment is affirmed.
    In this opinion the other judges concurred.
    1
    Stratton testified that the registration to the license plate number Adlam
    provided ‘‘came back to 44 Admiral Street, and it was registered to [R]DW
    Works’’ and that the defendant lived at that same address. The record is
    unclear as to how Stratton obtained the defendant’s address in order to
    make that connection.
    2
    The officers testified that they started the field sobriety tests approxi-
    mately ten minutes after the defendant returned to the scene for the sec-
    ond time.
    3
    ‘‘Nystagmus is the inability of the eyes to maintain visual fixation on a
    stimulus when the eyes are turned to the side, often resulting in a lateral
    jerking of the eyeball. . . . The premise of the horizontal gaze nystagmus
    test is that as alcohol consumption increases, the closer to the midline of
    the nose the onset of nystagmus occurs. To administer the test, the officer
    positions a stimulus approximately twelve to eighteen inches away from
    and slightly above the subject’s eyes. The stimulus, usually a pen or the
    officer’s finger, is then moved slowly from the midline of the nose to maxi-
    mum deviation, the farthest lateral point to which the eyes can move to
    either side. The officer observes the subject’s eyes as he tracks the stimulus
    and looks for six clues, three for each eye, to determine whether the subject
    passes or fails the test.’’ (Citations omitted.) State v. Commins, 
    83 Conn. App. 496
    , 499, 
    850 A.2d 1074
     (2004), aff’d, 
    276 Conn. 503
    , 
    886 A.2d 824
     (2005),
    overruled in part on other grounds by State v. Elson, 
    311 Conn. 726
    , 
    91 A.3d 862
     (2014). The defendant failed the test and also failed to follow instructions
    to refrain from moving his head.
    4
    The walk and turn test requires the subject to take nine heel-to-toe steps
    in a straight line, pivot, and take nine heel-to-toe steps back while counting
    aloud. The defendant failed to keep his hands by his side, fell off the line,
    and had unsteady balance.
    5
    The one leg stand test requires the subject to pick a leg and balance on
    that leg with the raised leg’s toes pointing upward; this must be done while
    keeping their hands to their sides. The defendant was unable to balance
    and kept stumbling.
    6
    According to Troche, ‘‘[t]he [i]ntoxilyzer room has a state calibrated
    [i]ntoxilyzer machine which calibrates the blood alcohol . . . content and,
    in that room, [officers] conduct the A-44s. [Officers] look up the person’s
    record, check with [the police] center system, [officers] read [detained
    individuals] their rights, and [officers] would perform either the blood alco-
    hol test with the breath test or . . . do the urine test all within that room.’’
    See footnote 8 of this opinion.
    7
    See Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 478–79, 
    86 S. Ct. 1602
    , 
    16 L. Ed. 2d 694
     (1966).
    8
    ‘‘The A-44 form is used by the police to report an arrest related to
    operating a motor vehicle under the influence and the results of any sobriety
    tests administered or the refusal to submit to such tests.’’ (Internal quotation
    marks omitted.) Winsor v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, 
    101 Conn. App. 674
    , 678 n.4, 
    922 A.2d 330
     (2007).
    9
    The defendant claims that, ‘‘[d]uring the state’s rebuttal case, it elicited
    evidence from its expert, who testified to the defendant’s BAC. . . . Lock-
    wood gave his opinion that he believed the defendant’s BAC to be somewhere
    around 0.16 and 0.17 at the time the police officers started questioning him.
    . . . This testimony was improper, as it was unscientific, and was a direct
    violation of . . . § 14-227a (b), which only permits evidence from chemical
    testing of the defendant’s blood alcohol level at the time of the offense if
    offered by the defendant. . . . The evidence in this case rises to the level
    of extreme unreliability. In consequence, it violated the defendant’s due
    process rights . . . .’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added.) The state
    responds to the defendant’s claim by arguing that ‘‘[a] reliability objection
    is specifically tied to State v. Porter, 
    241 Conn. 57
    , 
    698 A.2d 739
     (1997) [cert.
    denied, 
    523 U.S. 1058
    , 
    118 S. Ct. 1384
    , 
    140 L. Ed. 2d 645
     (1998)] . . . .’’
    In his reply brief, the defendant attempted to clarify his claim, stating,
    ‘‘[t]his claim is not based upon an objection to the underlying science but,
    rather, an objection to a statutory violation. The defendant has not asserted
    that . . . Lockwood’s opinion is not scientifically possible. He has asserted
    it violated . . . § 14-227a, as it injected a blood alcohol content measure-
    ment into a behavioral prosecution.’’
    We observe the following regarding the defendant’s characterization of
    his claim on appeal. First, the defendant inaccurately describes Lockwood’s
    testimony. Lockwood testified about the BAC of a hypothetical individual
    exhibiting certain behaviors and did not opine directly about the BAC of
    the defendant. Second, the defendant misidentifies subsection (b) of § 14-
    227a as containing the prohibition on the admissibility of the defendant’s
    BAC in this case. It is subsection (c) of § 14-227a that limits the admission
    of a defendant’s BAC in a behavioral case only to those instances when the
    defendant consents to its admission. We read the defendant’s reliance on
    § 14-227a (b), which sets forth requirements regarding the manner in which
    BAC testing must be performed to ensure the reliability of BAC evidence,
    as another way of asserting his claim that the testimony was scientifically
    unreliable. Because the defendant expressly disavows any claim concerning
    the scientific reliability of the evidence, we review only the defendant’s
    claim that the testimony violated § 14-227a (c).
    10
    The defendant has not briefed on appeal any claim based on the rele-
    vancy of the evidence or the ‘‘lack of definite conclusions.’’ Accordingly,
    we deem these claims abandoned. See, e.g., State v. Nieves, 
    65 Conn. App. 212
    , 215–16 n.4, 
    782 A.2d 203
     (2001).
    11
    The relevant colloquy between the prosecutor and Lockwood during
    direct examination was as follows:
    ‘‘Q. Okay. So . . . assume that the following—assume that the following
    facts are in evidence. Assume that there was a motor vehicle accident at
    8:47 p.m. Assume that the defendant is sober at that time, no alcohol in the
    body. Assume fifteen seconds to get home, get out of the car, go upstairs,
    sit down in a chair, take a bottle out, and that bottle is—assume that—
    in evidence—the bottle is approximately twenty-four ounces, it is filled
    approximately half with rum, and then leaving one inch, it is approximately—
    assume that it is a mixture of port wine and some other alcohol and then
    one inch remaining for cranberry juice. Assume that the defendant then
    sips from a bottle—a pint of vodka and assume this drink is—it’s drank
    quickly, and that the defendant walks four minutes, and at—assume at
    approximately 9:05, the defendant has slurred words and is stumbling. Do
    you, based on your opinion, your training and experience, do you have an
    opinion on the rate of absorption?
    ‘‘A. Yes.
    ‘‘Q. And what is that opinion?
    ‘‘A. So, the drinking scenario described is a large volume of alcohol in a
    very short amount of time. The absorption is, again, the process by getting
    a drug into the blood system. So, we have to think about how are we getting
    the alcohol from the stomach into the small intestine, and, in this scenario,
    studies have shown that it takes about thirty to forty minutes for an individual
    to absorb to the peak—peak alcohol concentration of the drinks they’ve had.
    ‘‘Q. Okay, and let’s assume again, assume that . . . the defendant in these
    set of facts are—was approximately five feet, ten inches, let’s say 190. Does
    that have an effect on your opinion on the rate of the absorption?
    ‘‘A. On the rate of my absorption—just on the rate of absorption, no.
    ‘‘Q. Okay, and do you have an opinion on how much time it would take
    to absorb the alcohol?
    ‘‘A. Yes, as I mentioned it—I would estimate between thirty and forty
    minutes.
    ‘‘Q. Okay. Does that change—does that opinion change if the person has
    a full stomach or an empty stomach?
    ‘‘A. If the person has a full stomach, we have to push back the absorption
    time; so, it actually would take a little bit more—more time to reach the peak.
    ‘‘Q. Okay, and now, based on your training and experience, if somebody
    has—assume that somebody has slurred words. Do you have a BAC that
    you associate with slurred words based on your training and experience?
    ‘‘A. Yes.
    ‘‘Q. Okay, and what is that?
    ‘‘A. So, slurred speech, when we talk about slurred speech, we’re actually
    talking about the musculature around the mouth being affected, and this
    means that we have a significant amount of alcohol. When we see slurred
    speech, we usually think of a BAC around 0.16, 0.17 or higher.
    ‘‘Q. Okay, and do you have an opinion on how many drinks you would
    have to drink in order to get to that level of a BAC?
    ‘‘A. Yes.
    ‘‘Q. And what is that?
    ‘‘A. Given the parameters—
    ‘‘Q. Hm-hmm.
    ‘‘A. —of the previous question?
    ‘‘Q. Yes.
    ‘‘A. Okay. So, for an individual that weighs around 190 pounds, each drink
    would raise the BAC about 0.02 parts per deciliter or percent. So, if we
    give—if we take the BAC of 0.16, that would be about eight drinks. As I
    mentioned to you, this process of metabolism or breaking down is always
    occurring, so we’ll give eight or nine drinks.
    ‘‘Q. Okay, and let’s assume that somebody that—there’s somebody stum-
    bling, slurring words, at approximately 9:05. What time would they have to
    stop drinking in order to show those—have slurred words at 9:05? How
    long—how long ago prior would they have to start showing those symptoms?
    ‘‘A. I’m looking—estimating, not given the time of absorption, somewhere
    around 8:30—I’m sorry 8:35.’’
    12
    The defendant relies on Rowe v. Superior Court, 
    289 Conn. 649
    , 663,
    
    960 A.2d 256
     (2008), and State v. Fernando A., 
    294 Conn. 1
    , 31 n.26, 
    981 A.2d 427
     (2009), to support his argument that his claim is preserved. In
    those cases, our Supreme Court found that a claim was preserved when
    the objection raised at trial and those raised on appeal were related, meaning
    ‘‘there [was] substantial overlap between [the] theories under the case law.’’
    (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fernando A., supra, 31 n.26. In
    the present case, the general relevance and ‘‘definite conclusions’’ objections
    raise completely different legal grounds than an assertion that the testimony
    violated a prohibition on admissibility contained in § 14-227a (c). If the
    defendant had raised § 14-227a (c) during his objection at trial, the trial
    court would have been alerted to the need to consider the nature and
    application of the statutory prohibition.
    13
    In an attempt to demonstrate that the admission of Lockwood’s testi-
    mony violated his due process rights, the defendant cites State v. Johnson,
    
    312 Conn. 687
    , 
    94 A.3d 1173
     (2014), as authority that his claim is constitu-
    tional in nature. The claim in Johnson concerned the admission of an out-
    of-court identification of the defendant that was tainted by unnecessarily
    suggestive identification procedures. It is well established that the admission
    of an out-of-court identification that is unreliable and based on unduly
    suggestive identification procedures violates due process. See, e.g., Neil v.
    Biggers, 
    409 U.S. 188
    , 196, 
    93 S. Ct. 375
    , 
    34 L. Ed. 2d 401
     (1972). The
    defendant does not explain how the jurisprudence relating to the admission
    of an unreliable out-of-court identification is applicable to the present case.
    14
    The following exchange occurred between defense counsel and Lock-
    wood during cross-examination:
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: All of those estimates you gave [to the prosecutor]
    are just estimates, correct?
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: Yes.
    ***
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Okay. Also, you don’t actually know [the defen-
    dant], correct?
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: I do not.
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: You’ve never met him and—right?—before this?
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: I have not.
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: And you’ve never tested him?
    ‘‘[Lockwood]: I have not.’’
    15
    The following exchange occurred between defense counsel and the
    defendant on direct examination:
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: . . . Okay. Mr. Waters, then, after drinking the Jamai-
    can splash, what did you do?
    ‘‘[The Defendant]: So, after I drunk the Jamaican splash, I had the half-
    pint of vodka, and then I also had a spliff—half a spliff left on my coffee table;
    so, I just started smoking that and sipping on—on the half-pint of vodka.’’
    Later, during defense counsel’s direct examination of the defendant, the
    following colloquy occurred:
    ‘‘[Defense Counsel]: Okay, and you said that you were also smoking a
    spliff that was on your coffee table?
    ‘‘[The Defendant]: Yes.’’
    16
    Specifically, the state claims that the record is inadequate to review the
    defendant’s statements at the police station because ‘‘[t]he trial court did
    not make any factual findings or legal conclusions regarding [those state-
    ments],’’ and the defendant failed to seek an articulation from the trial
    court. The state also argues that the entirety of his suppression claim is
    inadequately briefed. Although we agree with the state that the record is
    inadequate to review the defendant’s claim, we do not agree that the defen-
    dant’s claim is inadequately briefed. See State v. Buhl, 
    321 Conn. 688
    , 724,
    
    138 A.3d 868
     (2016) (‘‘[a]nalysis, rather than mere abstract assertion, is
    required in order to avoid abandoning an issue by failure to brief the issue
    properly’’ (internal quotation marks omitted)).
    17
    See Terry v. Ohio, 
    392 U.S. 1
    , 21–22, 
    88 S. Ct. 1868
    , 
    20 L. Ed. 2d 889
     (1968).
    18
    The body camera footage consists of approximately three hours of film
    from Correa’s, Stratton’s, and Troche’s body cameras on the night of the
    accident. The footage shows the officers’ interaction with the defendant
    both at the scene of the accident and in the intoxilyzer room. Some of the
    facts in the recordings are undisputed by the parties, such as the fact that
    the defendant was handcuffed, asked questions by the police, and failed
    three field sobriety tests. Other facts are disputed by the parties, including
    the defendant’s statements at the scene of the accident relating to whether he
    believed he was being detained or whether he knew he was not under arrest.
    19
    We note that, after issuing its oral decision on the motion to suppress,
    the court marked the DVDs containing the body camera footage as court
    exhibits two, three, and four.
    20
    Practice Book § 66-5 provides in relevant part: ‘‘A motion seeking correc-
    tions in the transcript or the trial court record or seeking an articulation
    or further articulation of the decision of the trial court shall be called a
    motion for rectification or a motion for articulation, whichever is applicable.
    Any motion filed pursuant to this section shall state with particularity the
    relief sought and shall be filed with the appellate clerk. . . .’’
    21
    ‘‘Two threshold conditions must be satisfied in order to invoke the
    warnings constitutionally required by Miranda: (1) the defendant must have
    been in custody; and (2) the defendant must have been subjected to police
    interrogation.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 
    302 Conn. 287
    , 294, 
    25 A.3d 648
     (2011). The court may have concluded that,
    even if the defendant was in custody, he had not been subjected to police
    interrogation and, thus, Miranda warnings were not required.