context: These waiver principles apply to unpreserved constitutional claims for good reason. The narrow Golding exception to the general rule that a reviewing court will not consider a claim not previously raised at trial is justified by the overriding importance of protecting the fundamental constitutional rights of the accused.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 165 Conn. 61, 70
citation_a.parenthetical: predecessor to Golding identified " 'exceptional circumstance' " that arises when "the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial"
citation_a.sentence: See State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 238-39 (explaining “exceptional” circumstance presented by unpreserved claim of constitutional violation if record sufficient for review); see also State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70, 327 A.2d 576 (1973) (predecessor to Golding identified “ ‘exceptional circumstance’ ” that arises when “the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: explaining "exceptional" circumstance presented by unpreserved claim of constitutional violation if record sufficient for review
citation_b.sentence: See State v. Golding, supra, 213 Conn. 238-39 (explaining “exceptional” circumstance presented by unpreserved claim of constitutional violation if record sufficient for review); see also State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 70, 327 A.2d 576 (1973) (predecessor to Golding identified “ ‘exceptional circumstance’ ” that arises when “the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial”).