State v. Skakel

Opinion

PALMER, J.

On October 31, 1975, fifteen year old Martha Moxley was found bludgeoned to death in a wooded area on the grounds near her family home in Greenwich. No one was charged in connection with her murder until twenty-five years later, when the defendant, Michael Skakel, a fifteen year- old neighbor of the victim at the time of her death, was arrested and charged with the crime. The case initially was brought in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters and, thereafter, transferred to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court. Thereafter, the case was tried to a jury, which found him guilty of murder in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 53a-54a (a). 1 The trial court rendered judgment in accordance with the jury verdict, 2 from which the defendant appealed. 3 On appeal, the defendant claims that: (1) his case improperly was transferred from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court; (2) his prosecution was time barred by the five year statute of limitations for felonies that was in effect when the victim was murdered in 1975; (3) the state failed to disclose certain exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S. Ct. 1194 , 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963), thereby depriving him of his right to a fair trial; *640 (4) the state’s attorney engaged in pervasive misconduct during closing argument in violation of the defendant’s right to a fair trial; (5) the trial court improperly permitted the state to introduce into evidence the prior sworn testimony of a certain witness in violation of the defendant’s constitutionally protected right of confrontation; and (6) the trial court improperly permitted the state to present evidence of several incriminating statements that the defendant made while a resident at a school for troubled adolescents in Maine. The defendant also challenges the propriety of several other evidentiary rulings of the trial court. We reject each of the defendant’s claims and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. Sometime between 6:30 and 7:30 p.m. on the evening of Thursday, October 30, 1975, the victim left her home on Walsh Lane, located in the Belle Haven section of Greenwich, with a friend, Helen lx, to play and socialize in and around the neighborhood. It was the night before Halloween, commonly referred to as “mischief night,” an evening when the neighborhood children were known to engage in playful mischief. The victim and lx soon were accompanied by other friends who lived nearby. Several times that night, the group stopped by the Skakel home, which was located on Otter Rock Drive. 4 The first time they did so, the defendant was dining at the Belle Haven Club with his siblings, Rushton Skakel, Jr., Julie Skakel, Thomas Skakel, John Skakel, David Skakel and Stephen Skakel, their cousin James Dowdle, 5

6 their tutor Kenneth Littleton, and Julie Skakel’s friend Andrea Shakespeare. The Skakel group arrived home from dinner before 9 p.m., at which time *641 the victim and her friends again visited the defendant’s house.

Shortly thereafter, the defendant, joined by the victim, lx and Jeffrey Byrne, a friend of the victim, entered one of the Skakel family vehicles, a Lincoln Continental, which was parked on the Skakels’ side driveway, to talk and listen to music. Thomas Skakel, the defendant’s then seventeen year old brother, soon joined the group. Sometime before 9:30 p.m., the group was interrupted by Rushton Skakel, Jr., and John Skakel, who needed to use the Lincoln Continental to drive Dowdle home, where they planned to watch a television program scheduled to air at 10 p.m. Consequently, Thomas Skakel, lx, Byrne and the victim exited the car. As lx began to leave the Skakel property with Byrne, she observed Thomas Skakel and the victim engaging in flirtatious horseplay at the other end of the driveway. Feeling “a bit embarrassed by the flirting,” lx left to go home. 6

The victim’s mother, Dorothy Moxley, expected that the victim would be home that evening by 10:30 or 11 p.m. At about 1:30 or 2 a.m., upon discovering that her daughter had not returned home, she sent the victim’s brother, John Moxley, out to look for her. Dorothy Moxley thereafter telephoned anyone who she thought might know the victim’s whereabouts, including the defendant’s family, whom Dorothy Moxley called several times. Dorothy Moxley’s efforts to locate the victim were unsuccessful, and she eventually contacted the *642 Greenwich police department, which dispatched an officer to the Moxley home. The officer made a missing persons report and briefly searched the surrounding area. The next morning, at about 8:30 a.m., Dorothy Moxley, believing that the victim may have fallen asleep in the Skakel family motor home that usually was parked in the Skakels’ driveway, went to the defendant’s house. The defendant answered the door, appearing “hungover” and dressed in jeans and a T-shirt. The defendant informed Dorothy Moxley that the victim was not at his home, and an inspection of the motor home by a Skakel employee confirmed that she was not there either.

Later that day, at about noon, a neighborhood friend discovered the victim’s dead body under a large pine tree in a wooded area on the Moxley property. The victim was lying facedown, with her pants and panties pulled down around her ankles. Forensic tests revealed that the victim had died from multiple blunt force traumatic head injuries. A large quantity of blood was discovered in two areas in a grassy region approximately seventy feet from the victim’s body, with a distinct drag path leading from the pools of blood to the location where the victim’s body was found. The victim likely was assaulted at or near the farther end of her circular driveway and then dragged approximately eighty feet to the pine tree under which her body subsequently was discovered. Remnants of the murder weapon, a Tony Penna six iron golf club, also were found at the crime scene. The head of the golf club and an eight inch section of its shaft were found on the circular driveway, approximately 116 feet from the area where the large accumulation of the victim’s blood was found. Another piece of the shaft was discovered on the grassy area near the two large pools of blood. The remaining part of the shaft attached to the club handle never was found.

*643 Harold Wayne Carver II, a forensic pathologist and the state’s chief medical examiner, testified regarding the findings of the original autopsy performed by then chief medical examiner Elliot M. Gross, also a forensic pathologist. Carver stated that the victim’s injuries appeared consistent with having been inflicted by a golf club. In addition to the fatal head injuries, the victim had been stabbed in the neck with a piece of the golf club shaft. According to Carver, Gross had used an ultraviolet light to detect the presence of semen on the victim’s pubic region and also had taken vaginal and anal swabs. No semen was found in those areas, however. Nothing in the autopsy report indicated that the ultraviolet light had been applied to the victim’s buttocks or to other parts of the victim’s body. With respect to the time of death, Carver testified that the victim had been dead for some time before her body was found. He further opined that the time of death more likely was closer to 9:30 p.m. on October 30,1975, when she was last seen alive, rather than noon the following day, when her body was discovered. Because the autopsy was conducted twenty-four hours after the discovery of the victim’s body, a more precise time of death could not be ascertained. 7

Henry Lee, a forensic scientist and the former state chief criminalist, reviewed the documents, photographs and physical evidence compiled by the investigators and performed a partial reconstruction of the crime scene. On the basis of his investigation, Lee testified as to the likely nature and sequence of events leading *644 up to the victim’s death. In particular, he indicated that the golf club that was used to assault and kill the victim probably had broken into pieces from the force with which the victim had been struck. This force, according to Lee, likely propelled the head of the golf club, and a piece of its shaft, over seventy feet, from the location of the fatal assault to the location inside the circular driveway where those pieces subsequently were discovered. According to Lee, the remaining piece of the golf club shaft then was used as a sharp weapon to stab the victim. Lee further testified that, in light of the amount of blood found on the inside of the victim’s jeans and panties, those garments likely were pulled down before the assault occurred. Lee also stated that the absence of vertical blood drippings on the victim’s shoes and jeans indicated that the victim was lying on the ground when the perpetrator inflicted the injuries to her head and neck.

James Lunney, a detective with the Greenwich police department in 1975, testified that, on the day that the victim’s body was discovered, he briefly visited the defendant’s home and noticed a barrel containing several items, including golf clubs, in a hallway near the rear of the home. Lunney testified that one of the golf clubs, a Tony Penna four iron, later was seized from the property with the written consent of the defendant’s father. Thomas G. Keegan, a captain in the detective division of the Greenwich police department in 1975, testified that an examination of the seized golf club and the golf club parts found at the crime scene revealed that the murder weapon came from the defendant’s home. 8

*645 In the days and months following the victim’s murder, the Greenwich police conducted numerous interviews in furtherance of its criminal investigation into the victim’s death. The defendant and his siblings were among those interviewed in the early stages of that investigation. On November 15, 1975, the defendant, who was accompanied by his father, gave a tape-recorded interview to the Greenwich police at the police station. Responding to inquiries concerning his whereabouts on the night of the murder, the defendant explained that he had accompanied his brothers and Dowdle to Dowdle’s home, which was about twenty minutes away, and watched the television show “Monty Python’s Flying Circus.” According to the defendant, he returned to his home around 10:30 or 11 p.m., 9 and went to bed about fifteen minutes later. When asked specifically about whether he left the house after he went to his bedroom that night, the defendant responded, “no.” The defendant acknowledged, however, that, on other occasions, he had left his home after ostensibly retiring to his room for the night.

In 1977, two years following the victim’s murder, the defendant revealed certain feelings of guilt and remorse to Larry Zicarelli, who then was employed by the defendant’s family as a driver and general handyman. While being driven by Zicarelli to an appointment in New York City, the defendant, distraught from an earlier altercation with his father, told Zicarelli that he “had done something very bad” and that he “either had to kill himself or get out of the country.” On another occasion, Zicarelli and the defendant were stopped in traffic on *646 the Triborough Bridge in New York on their way home when the defendant “opened the [car] door, started to jump out of the car and ran to the side ... of the bridge.” Zicarelli ran after the defendant and forced him back into the car. As Zicarelli was proceeding to the driver’s side door, the defendant again exited the car and ran toward the other side of the bridge. Zicarelli once again hurried toward the defendant and forced him back into the car. Just before Zicarelli and the defendant arrived at the Skakel home, Zicarelli asked the defendant, “[W]hy would [you] want to do what [you were] trying to do?” The defendant responded that, “if [you] knew what [I] had done, [you] would never talk to [me] again.” 10 Immediately following this incident, Zicarelli terminated his employment with the Skakels. 11

From 1978 to 1980, the defendant was a resident at the Elan School, a residential facility for troubled adolescents located in Poland Springs, Maine. Several former Elan residents testified about the deplorable conditions at the institution, which employed a behavioral modification approach predicated on controversial techniques of intimidation, confrontation and humiliation of its residents. As a result, Elan residents regularly endured mental and physical abuse at the hands of their peers and Elan staff members. While a *647 resident at Elan, the defendant frequently was confronted and inteixogated about his involvement in the victim’s murder. For example, Charles Seigen, who was enrolled at Elan with the defendant from 1978 to 1979, testified that he recalled attending two or three group therapy sessions, supervised by a staff member and typically attended by eight residents, during which the defendant was confronted about the victim’s murder. According to Seigen, the defendant sometimes responded to such probing with annoyance. On other occasions, however, the defendant became veiy upset, cried and stated that he did not know if he had done it. The defendant also stated in these group sessions that, on the night of the victim’s murder, he was “blind drunk” and “stumbling.” 12

Dorothy Rogers, another former resident of Elan, testified that, on one occasion, when she and the defen *648 dant were talking at an Elan social function, the defendant told her that he had been drinking on the night of the murder and that he could not recall whether he was involved in the victim’s death. The defendant further explained to Rogers that his family had enrolled him at Elan because they feared that he may have murdered the victim and wanted him in a location far removed from the investigating officers. Gregory Coleman, a resident at Elan from 1978 to 1980, testified about an exchange that he had had with the defendant while Coleman stood “guard” over the defendant following the defendant’s failed escape attempt from Elan. During this conversation, the defendant confided in Coleman about murdering a girl who had rejected his advances. According to Coleman, the defendant had admitted killing the girl with a golf club in a wooded area, that the force with which he had hit her had caused the golf club to break in half, and that he had returned to the body two days later and masturbated on it. John Higgins, another former resident of Elan, recounted certain emotional admissions that the defendant had made to him while the two were on guard duty one night on the porch of the men’s dormitory at Elan. In particular, Higgins testified that the defendant had told him that, on the night of the murder, there was a “party of some kind or another” at the defendant’s home. The defendant also told Higgins that he remembered rummaging through his garage looking for a golf club, running through the woods with the club and seeing pine trees. Higgins further stated that, as the conversation continued, the defendant’s acknowledgment of his culpability in the victim’s murder progressed from “he didn’t know whether he did it” to “he may have done it” to “he must have done it,” and finally to “I did it.”

Elizabeth Arnold and Alice Dunn, both of whom had attended Elan during the defendant’s stay at the facility, also testified about certain inculpatory statements that *649 the defendant had made to them. Both testified that the defendant had expressed uncertainty as to whether he or his brother had murdered the victim. Arnold also recalled a group therapy session in which the defendant, upon being questioned about the victim’s murder, stated that “[h]e was very drunk and had some sort of a blackout” that night, that his brother had “foolfed] around” with his “girlfriend,” and that his brother had stolen her from him. Dunn, who graduated from Elan in 1978 and subsequently became a staff member there, testified that while she was employed at Elan, the defendant stated that he was not in “his normal state” on the night of the murder.

Thereafter, in the summer of 1987, the defendant told Michael Meredith, a former Elan resident who was staying temporarily in the defendant’s home, that, on the night of the victim’s murder, he had climbed a tree on the Moxley property and masturbated in the tree while watching the victim through her window. According to Meredith, he first learned of the victim’s murder in this conversation. The defendant also told Meredith that while he was in the tree, he saw his brother Thomas Skakel walk across the Moxley property toward the victim’s home but that Thomas Skakel had not seen him in the tree. The defendant related a similar story to Andrew Pugh, a close childhood friend, when the two saw one another in 1991. The defendant had expressed a desire to renew their friendship, which gradually had faded following the victim’s murder. In an effort to ease Pugh’s concerns about the defendant’s involvement in the victim’s death, the defendant assured Pugh that he did not kill the victim but mentioned that he had masturbated in a tree on the night that she was murdered. Pugh understood that the tree to which the defendant referred was the tree under which the victim’s body was discovered.

*650 The most descriptive account of the defendant’s activities on the night of the murder came in 1997 from an taped-recorded conversation between the defendant and Richard Hoffman, a writer who was collaborating with the defendant on a book about the defendant’s life. On that tape, the defendant explained to Hoffman that, earlier in the evening of the victim’s murder, he had invited the victim, who was seated with the defendant in his father’s car, to accompany him to his cousin’s house to watch the Monty Python Flying Circus television show. The victim declined the invitation because of her curfew, and the two instead made plans to go “trick or treating” the next night. The defendant thereafter left for Dowdle’s home with his brothers Rushton Skakel, Jr., and John Skakel, as well as Dowdle.

The defendant told Hoffman that, after returning to his own home from Dowdle’s house, he had walked through the house in search of various people. Upon observing that the door to his sister’s room was closed, he had “remember[ed] that [his sister’s friend, Shakespeare] had gone home . . . .” He then indicated that he had gone into “the master bedroom [but] there was nobody there, the [television] was on but nobody was there.” The defendant went upstairs to bed shortly thereafter, but he became “homy” and decided to spy on a “lady” who lived on Walsh Lane. The defendant then “snuck out” of his house and went to this person’s home, hoping to see her through her window. Unsuccessful in that endeavor, he thought, “[f]uck this . . . Martha likes me, I’ll go, I’ll go get a kiss from Martha.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) The defendant then proceeded to the victim’s home, climbed a tree near the victim’s front door and masturbated in the tree for about thirty seconds. Shortly thereafter, “a moment of clarity came into [his] head,” and the defendant climbed down from the tree and walked back home. On his way home, he threw rocks into the dark, repeatedly yelling, *651 “Who’s in there?” He and his friends previously had done this while shooting BB guns into the dark. The next morning, the defendant awoke to “[Dorothy] Moxley saying ‘Michael . . . have you seen Martha?’ ” The defendant thought to himself, “Oh my God, did they see me last night?” At that moment, the defendant told Hoffman, he “remember[ed] just having a feeling of panic.”

The state also adduced evidence establishing that the defendant, who was infatuated with the victim, had grown resentful of her flirtatious friendship with his older brother Thomas Skakel, whom he considered his nemesis. According to Pugh, who in 1975 was friendly with the victim and the defendant, the defendant had “told [him] that he liked Martha quite a bit and had a crush on her.” Pugh also testified that the defendant had told him that “he would have liked to have a relationship with her.” Pugh testified that he had observed the defendant and the victim engage in “horseplay, roughhousing, fooling around . . . [and] kissing one time in the [Skakel family motor home].” With respect to Thomas Skakel’s relationship with the victim, Jacqueline Wettenhall O’Hara, a neighborhood friend of the victim, recounted observing flirtatious conduct between the victim and Thomas Skakel in the months leading up to the victim’s death. Entries recorded in the victim’s diary in the two months preceding her murder disclosed the victim’s friendship with the defendant and Thomas Skakel, and also revealed the sometimes flirtatious nature of her relationship with Thomas Skakel. 13 In addition, lx testi *652 fied that she had observed the victim and Thomas Skakel engaging in flirtatious horseplay the last time she saw the victim alive. Moreover, one of the sneakers that the victim was wearing when her body was recovered had the name “Tom” written on it.

The defendant raised an alibi defense at trial. In particular, he claimed that the victim had been murdered at approximately 10 p.m. on October 30, 1975, 14 and that he was at Dowdle’s home, some twenty minutes away from the murder scene, at that time. The defendant also raised a third party culpability defense, pointing to Littleton as a likely perpetrator of the victim’s murder. In fact, Littleton, who had been hired as a part-time tutor by the Skakel family, had taken up residence at the Skakel home on October 30, 1975, the day that the victim was last seen alive, and had slept there with the Skakel children that night. Littleton testified that, after returning home from dinner at 9 p.m., he remained at the house all night, stepping outside briefly at approx *653 imately 9:30 p.m. only to investigate a disturbance. 15 In addition, testimony adduced by the defendant revealed that Littleton, who began to manifest serious psychiatric and behavioral problems in the years following the murder, may have made a statement, several years after the killing, in which he implicated himself in the crime. Littleton emphatically denied that he had had anything to do with the victim’s death, however.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found the defendant guilty of murder. The trial court denied the defendant’s posttrial motions and, thereafter, sentenced the defendant to a period of incarceration of twenty years to life imprisonment. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

We first address the defendant’s claim that the court, Dennis, J. (juvenile court), improperly transferred his case from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court. Specifically, the defendant claims that the juvenile court improperly: (1) failed to require a complete investigation into the defendant’s personal history and background in accordance with General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) §§ 17-60a 16 *654 and 17-66, 17 which, at all times relevant to this appeal, governed the transfer of a juvenile matter to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court; (2) relied on the current regulations of the department of children and families (department) in concluding that there was no state institution suitable for the care and treatment of the defendant within the meaning of § 17-60a (2); and (3) failed to explore the existence of facilities outside the state suitable for the care and treatment of the defendant. We reject the defendant’s claim that the juvenile court improperly transferred his case to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court. 18

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this claim. Because the defendant was fifteen years old at the time of the offense, he initially was charged as a delinquent in the Superior Court for Juvenile Matters. The state subsequently filed a motion under § 17-60a to transfer the defendant’s case to the regular criminal docket. The juvenile court there *655 after conducted a hearing to determine whether, pursuant to § 17-60a, there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had committed the murder with which he had been charged. Following the presentation of evidence on that issue, the juvenile court concluded that there was reasonable cause to believe that the defendant had committed that offense. 19 The juvenile court also issued an order pursuant to § 17-60a directing that an investigation be conducted in accordance with § 17-66.

After the investigation was complete, the juvenile court reconvened the defendant’s statutorily mandated transfer hearing for the purpose of addressing the remaining elements of § 17-60a. At the hearing, the parties elicited testimony from the supervisor of juvenile probation, Joseph Pacquin, who had been assigned to conduct the investigation required by § 17-60a. Pacquin acknowledged that his investigation had focused primarily on the possible availability of a state facility that would be suitable for the defendant, and not on the defendant’s personal, family and educational background. See General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-66. Pacquin gave several reasons for failing to investigate the defendant’s personal history and family background, notwithstanding the dictates of § 17-66, including the fact that the defendant was forty years of age at the time of the transfer hearing. With specific regard to the defendant’s education, Pacquin testified that he had not looked into that facet of the defendant’s background because § 17-66 does not require such a review unless the child is or legally should be attending school. Additionally, Pacquin testified that he had not sought a physical or mental examination of the defendant because the court had not ordered such an examination to be conducted pursuant to § 17-66. With respect to *656 possible residential and treatment alternatives, Pacquin testified that the department is the state agency solely responsible for the detention and treatment of juveniles, and that the department cannot lawfully accept for placement persons over the age of eighteen. Pacquin’s testimony in this regard was consistent with the testimony of Judith Kallen, a program director employed by the department, who testified at the defendant’s reasonable cause hearing that department regulations prohibited the commitment or placement of individuals over the age of eighteen into the care and custody of the department.

In support of his objection to the state’s motion to transfer, defense counsel adduced testimony from Clinton Roberts, a former state probation officer and president of Alternative Sentencing Consultants, Inc., a private sentencing consulting firm. Roberts indicated that, contrary to the testimony of Pacquin, there is a private, nonprofit facility located in Newtown that admits both juveniles and adults, and that the Newtown facility might serve the residential treatment needs of the defendant. On cross-examination, however, Roberts conceded that the facility operated primarily as a substance abuse treatment center, and he could not say whether the facility was appropriate for the defendant. Defense counsel also elicited testimony that the state juvenile justice system occasionally places juveniles in programs located in other states, but that these placements are reserved for juveniles with special needs that cannot be met in programs located within the state.

In a memorandum of decision issued after the conclusion of the hearing, the juvenile court noted that, under the particular circumstances presented, the provisions of § 17-66 “are not totally applicable . . . .” The court further observed that department regulations prohibit the placement with the department of anyone over the age of eighteen. The court; also noted that, although *657 General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-68 (c) 20 provides for the commitment of a child directly to a hospital or other appropriate institution if the child is determined to be mentally ill, the issue of mental illness never was raised at any time by the defendant, and the record otherwise was devoid of any indication that the defendant suffered from any such illness. The court thereafter concluded that “there [was] no available or suitable state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which the juvenile court could commit the . . . forty year old [defendant] that would be suitable for his care and treatment, should he be adjudicated delinquent for the murder of [the victim],” and that “the facilities of the adult criminal division of the Superior Court afford[ed] and provide [ed] a more effective setting for the disposition of this case, and the institutions to which the adult criminal division of the Superior Court may sentence a defendant [were] more suitable for the care and treatment of this [defendant], should he be found guilty of the murder of [the victim].” Accordingly, the juvenile court transferred the case to the regular criminal docket. 21

Before addressing the defendant’s claims, we set forth the legal principles that govern our resolution of *658 those claims. “There is no dispute that adjudication as a juvenile rather than prosecution as an adult carries significant benefits, chief among which are a determination of delinquency rather than criminality . . . confidentiality . . . limitations with respect to sentencing . . . erasure of files . . . and isolation from the adult criminal population.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Angel C., 245 Conn. 93, 103 , 715 A.2d 652 (1998). Accordingly, “a juvenile in whom a liberty interest in his or her juvenile status has vested, has a substantial liberty interest in the continuation of that juvenile status and that the juvenile cannot and should not be deprived of that status without [proper] procedural protections . . . .” Id.; see also Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 557 , 86 S. Ct. 1045 , 16 L. Ed. 2d 84 (1966) (juvenile court’s failure to conduct full investigation, as required by statute, prior to juvenile’s transfer to regular criminal docket resulted in deprivation of liberty without due process of law). Importantly, however, “[a]ny [special treatment] accorded to a juvenile because of his [or her] age with respect to proceedings relative to a criminal offense results from statutory authority, rather than from any inherent or constitutional right. ” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Angel C., supra, 104 . Accordingly, in the present matter, to the extent that the defendant possesses a liberty interest in his juvenile status, that interest derives from, and is limited by, the statutory provisions governing the transfer, adjudication and commitment of juveniles.

We turn next to the relevant statutory provisions. Under the statutory scheme in effect in 1975, 22 the juvenile court had original and exclusive jurisdiction “over all proceedings concerning uncared-for, neglected, *659 dependent and delinquent children within this state . . . .” General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-59. Statutes governing the authority and proceedings of the juvenile court define a “child” as “any person under sixteen years of age,” who may be found “delinquent” by the court if, inter alia, the child “has violated any federal or state law or municipal or local ordinance . . . .” General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-53. With respect to a child who has been referred to the juvenile court because that child allegedly had committed the crime of murder, § 17-60a authorizes the court to transfer the child to the regular criminal docket of the Superior Court provided that the child was at least fourteen years of age when the murder was committed. Such a transfer is not permitted by § 17-60a, however, unless an investigation of the child’s personal and family background has been completed in accordance with § 17-66, and the juvenile court has determined, after a hearing, that there is reasonable cause to believe that: (1) the child has committed the crime charged; (2) there is no available state institution designed for the care and treatment of children that would be suitable for the child, or community safety requires that the child be detained in a custodial setting for a period extending beyond majority age; and (3) the facilities of the Superior Court provide a more effective setting for disposition of the case and the adult institutions to which the child may be sentenced are more appropriate for his or her care or treatment. With respect to the mandated investigation, General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-66 mandates that the required investigation include an examination of “the parentage and surroundings of the child, his age, habits, and history, and . . . also an inquiry into the home conditions, habits and character of his parents or guardians.” 23

*660 The defendant first claims that his transfer from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket was improper because Pacquin did not conduct a complete investigation into the defendant’s personal and family background as required by §§ 17-60a and 17-66. We agree with the defendant that Pacquin’s investigation did not satisfy the requirements of § 17-66, and that, normally, a failure to meet those requirements would render invalid the transfer of any case from juvenile court to the regular criminal docket pursuant to § 17-60a. It also is clear, however, that a § 17-66 investigation is mandated by § 17-60a solely for the purpose of assisting the juvenile court in its determination of whether, under the circumstances, there exists a suitable state institution to which the child may be committed in preference to the facilities otherwise available for the treatment and punishment of adult offenders. In the present case, however, testimony adduced at the transfer hearing established that the age of the then forty year old defendant foreclosed his adjudication in juvenile court because the department was prohibited by state regulations 24 from accepting for placement anyone over the age of eighteen, regardless of whether such placement would involve a custodial or noncustodial setting. Thus, the juvenile court necessarily would have concluded, irrespective of the results of a complete investigation in accordance with § 17-66, that the defendant’s age mandated the transfer of his case to the regular criminal docket. Consequently, Pacquin’s failure to complete the investigation contemplated by § 17-66, and the juvenile court’s failure to consider facts that might have been brought to light upon the completion of that investigation, had no bearing on that corut’s ultimate decision under § 17-60a to transfer the defendant’s case to the regular criminal docket. 25

*661 The defendant next claims that the juvenile court improperly relied on regulations of the department that were in effect at the time of the transfer hearing in concluding that there was no state institution suitable for his care and treatment. In particular, the defendant claims that the juvenile court’s reliance on the regulations prohibiting the placement with the department of anyone over the age of eighteen thwarts the will of the legislature as expressed in the statutory scheme that was in effect in 1975, because that age limitation on placements with the department was not a part of the statutory scheme at that time.

General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-60a provides in relevant part that no transfer shall be valid unless the juvenile court finds that “there is no state institution designed for the care and treatment of children to which [the] court may commit such child which is suitable for his care or treatment . . . .” (Emphasis added.) We agree with the juvenile court that this statutory provision “narrowly focus [es] on the availability and suitability of state institutions ‘designed for the care and treatment of children’ to which the juvenile court has authority to ‘commit such child.’ ” (Emphasis *662 added.) Thus, under § 17-60a, the commitment alternatives available to the juvenile court are those alternatives available at the time of the transfer hearing. 26 Because the juvenile court properly considered those commitment options, and not the commitment options that might have been available in 1975, the defendant’s claim must fail.

We also disagree with the defendant’s final claim, namely, that the juvenile court improperly failed to explore the suitability of placing the defendant in an out-of-state institution. Under General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 17-420, the commissioner of children and families (commissioner) may transfer “any person committed, admitted or transferred to the department . . . to any private agency or organization within or without the state under contract with the department,” provided that certain conditions are satisfied. Thus, a necessary prerequisite to the out-of-state transfer of a juvenile found to be delinquent is that the juvenile first must be “committed, admitted or transferred” to the care and custody of the department. As the trial court properly determined, however, under state law, no person over the age of eighteen may be committed to the care and custody of the department. Because the defendant could not be placed with the department, he could not be transferred by the commissioner to an out-of-state institution and, accordingly, the juvenile court properly declined to explore out-of-state placement alternatives for the defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant has failed to establish that the juvenile court improperly transferred his case to the regular criminal docket. Because *663 that transfer was proper, the state’s prosecution of the defendant as an adult was lawful.

II

The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly concluded that his prosecution for murder was not barred by the applicable statute of limitations. We disagree, albeit on the basis of an analysis that differs from that of the trial court.

The following factual and procedural background is necessary to our resolution of this claim. The defendant was arrested on January 19, 2000, for the October, 1975, murder of the victim and, as we have explained; see part I of this opinion; his case was transferred from the docket for juvenile matters to the regular criminal docket. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information on the ground that his prosecution for murder was barred by the five year limitation period of General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 54-193, 27 the statute of limitations that was in effect at the time of the victim’s murder. The trial court, Kavanewsky, J., denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, concluding that the five year limitation period of § 54-193, although *664 facially applicable to all felonies, including murder and all other class A felonies, was inapplicable to the crime of murder. 28 The trial court acknowledged that § 54-193 contains no express exception for murder and that this court, in State v. Paradise, 189 Conn. 346, 350 , 456 A.2d 305 (1983), had concluded that the 1976 amendment to § 54-193; Public Acts 1976, No. 76-35, § 1 (P.A. 76-35); which excepted all class A felonies, including murder, from the purview of § 54-193, did not apply retroactively to offenses committed prior to April 6, 1976, the effective date of P.A. 76-35. The trial court further recognized that, in Paradise , we ultimately had determined, on facts materially identical to the facts of the present case, that the prosecution of the defendants for murder in that case was barred by the five year limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193, the same version of § 54-193 that was in effect at the time of the murder of the victim in the present case. The trial court explained, however, that our determination in Paradise must be considered in light of two subsequent cases, State v. Ellis, 197 Conn. 436, 460 , 497 A.2d 974 (1985), 29 and State v. Golino, 201 Conn. 435, 438-39 , 518 A.2d 57 (1986), the holdings and rationale of which, in the trial court’s view, lead to the conclusion that the *665 five year limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193 was inapplicable to the crime of murder. 30 The trial court therefore denied the defen *666 dant’s motion to dismiss, and the case proceeded to trial, following which a jury found the defendant guilty of murder.

In support of his claim that the trial court improperly declined to dismiss the information as time barred, the defendant maintains that this case is both factually and legally indistinguishable from State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 346 , which, the defendant asserts, is therefore controlling and requires the dismissal of the information in the present case. The state asserts that we should overrule our holding in Paradise that P.A. 76-35, § 1, did not apply retroactively, a conclusion that was predicated on our determination that criminal statutes of limitation presumptively have prospective applicability only. See id., 351-53. Alternatively, the state maintains that the trial court correctly concluded that Paradise does not bar the state’s prosecution of the defendant for murder because our determination in Paradise that the murder prosecutions in that case were time barred rested on a faulty assumption, namely, that the five year limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193 applied to murder as well as to all other felonies. See footnote 30 of this opinion.

Upon reconsideration, we are persuaded that Paradise was wrongly decided. In particular, we conclude that we were misguided in establishing a presumption that, in the absence of a contrary indication of legislative intent, an amendment to a criminal statute of limitations is not to be applied retroactively. As we explain more fully hereinafter, we are convinced that, with respect to those offenses for which the preamendment limitation period has not expired, it is far more likely that the legislature intended for the amended limitation period to apply to those offenses. In view of the fact that the five year limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193 had not expired with respect to the October, 1975 murder of the victim when *667 the 1976 amendment to that statutory provision became effective, we conclude that P.A. 76-35, § 1, is the operative statute of limitations for purposes of this case. 31 Because, under P.A. 76-35, § 1, there is no time period within which murder and other class A felonies must be prosecuted, the trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss the information.

We begin our analysis of this issue with a brief overview of the pertinent statutory provisions. The defendant was convicted of murder in violation of § 53a-54a, which, in 1975, specified that the offense “is punishable as a class A felony unless it is a capital felony and the death penalty is imposed as provided by section 53a-46a.” General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 53a-54a (c). Because the defendant was not charged with capital murder, 32 his offense was punishable as a class A felony, which, pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 53a-35 (b) (1), carries a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. At the time of the offense in October, 1975, General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 54-193 provided in relevant part: “No person shall be prosecuted . . . *668 for any crime or misdemeanor of which the punishment is or may be imprisonment . . . except within five years next after the offense has been committed . . . .” In 1976, however, the legislature amended § 54-193 to provide: “No person shall be prosecuted for any offense, except a capital felony or a class A felony for which the punishment is or may be imprisonment in excess of one year, except within five years next after the offense has been committed .... There shall be no limitation of time within which a person may be prosecuted for a capital felony or a class A felony.” P.A. 76-35, § 1.

We next turn to a review of our relevant prior precedent construing legislative amendments to criminal statutes of limitation, beginning with Paradise . In Paradise , the defendants, Brian Ellis and Wilmer Paradise, were charged, in 1981, with murder, felony murder and kidnapping, all class A felonies, in connection with a murder that had been committed in 1974. State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 347 . The trial court dismissed the charges against Ellis and Paradise; id., 348 ; concluding that their prosecutions were barred by the five year limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193, which was in effect at the time of the offenses. See id., 350. On appeal, the state claimed that P.A. 76-35, § 1, which excluded class A felonies, including murder, from the purview of the five year limitation period of § 54-193, was procedural in nature and, therefore, had retroactive applicability absent a contrary legislative intent. Id. In support of its position, the state relied primarily on “an extensive body of civil case law”; id.; in which this court had held that “procedural statute [s] . . . ordinarily will be applied retroactively without a legislative imperative to the contrary . . . .” 33 Id., 351.

*669 We declined, however, to decide whether the 1976 amendment was substantive or procedural. Id., 353. Although we reaffirmed “the continued vitality and utility of the principle that procedural statutes will be applied retrospectively absent a contrary legislative intent in the civil field”; id., 351; we concluded that this tenet was inapplicable to criminal statutes in light of the principle that such statutes “must be strictly construed.” Id., 352. In accordance with this principle, we concluded that “criminal statutes are not to be accorded retrospective effect absent language clearly necessitating such a construction . . . .” 34 Id., 353. After observing that § 54-193 must be strictly construed because it is “penal in nature”; id., 352; we explained that, because the language of P.A. 76-35, § 1, did not indicate “a clear legislative intent that the statute have a retrospective effect”; id., 353; it could not be applied retroactively to conduct that had preceded its effective date. See id. In view of the fact that all of the parties in Paradise had proceeded on the assumption that the five year limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193 applied to all felonies, including murder, we affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing the information as time barred.

*670 In State v. Crowell, 228 Conn. 393, 398-99 , 636 A.2d 804 (1994), we expressly reaffirmed our conclusion in Paradise that criminal statutes of limitation are accorded prospective effect only. The sole issue presented in Crowell was whether the seven year limitation period of General Statutes (Rev. to 1993) § 54-193a was applicable to the state’s prosecution of the defendant, Martin Crowell, for offenses relating to his alleged sexual molestation of a child when the amendment establishing that seven year limitation period became effective after the commission of the charged offenses but prior to the expiration of the preamendment five year limitation period. Id., 394-95. In urging this court to overrule Paradise , the state maintained that our holding in that case was “based on the faulty premise that a statute of limitations that extends a previous limitation period before that previous period has expired is ‘retroactive.’ ” Id., 398 . Specifically, the state claimed that, “to be ‘retroactive,’ a statute must affect a ‘vested right’ that existed on the date it took effect. Because a defendant has no right to a statute of limitations defense while the original limitation period remains unexpired, a new statute of limitations that takes effect before the original limitations period has expired does not affect a vested right and therefore cannot be retroactive.” Id. We rejected the state’s claim, noting that “[t]he holding in Paradise was based firmly on the principle that criminal statutes must be strictly construed . . . [and] not, as the state claims, on a technical misunderstanding of the nature of retroactivity.” (Citation omitted.) Id., 399 . Because there was nothing in the language of the amendment to indicate that the extended limitation period had retrospective effect, we concluded that the trial court properly had followed the dictates of Paradise in dismissing as time barred the charges against Crowell.

The next case relevant to our inquiry is In re Daniel H., 237 Conn. 364 , 678 A.2d 462 (1996), in which this *671 court addressed the issue of whether a 1994 amendment to General Statutes § 46b-127, the mandatory juvenile transfer statute, had retroactive applicability. See id., 366-67. We concluded that the 1994 amendment, which eliminated the right to an immediate appeal from a court order transferring a juvenile matter to the regular criminal docket, had prospective effect only. See id., 378. In so concluding, we explained, first, that our resolution of the issue was guided by the canon of strict construction applicable to criminal statutes. 35 Id., 373. In contrast to Paradise , however, that conclusion did not end our analysis. After noting that, under General Statutes § 55-3, 36 substantive changes to the law presumptively have prospective application only; id., 372; we stated that “[t]he first step in ascertaining whether the 1994 amendment was intended to apply retroactively ... is to decide whether the removal of a juvenile’s ability to appeal immediately from a court’s transfer order is a substantive change in the law.” Id., 373. We answered that question in the affirmative and, therefore, concluded that the change presumptively had prospective applicability only. Id., 375-76. We further determined that, because the presumption of prospective applicability was not rebutted by a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary, the amendment did not apply retroactively. Id., 376.

Thereafter, in State v. Parra, 251 Conn. 617, 619-20 , 741 A.2d 902 (1999), we considered whether a statutory amendment limiting the time within which a defendant *672 may move to vacate a judgment and withdraw a previously entered plea properly was applied to crimes committed prior to the effective date of the amendment. The defendant, Juan Parra, relied on Paradise in support of his claim that the amendment could not operate retroactively because it lacked explicit statutory language requiring such an application. Id., 622. Although we acknowledged that ‘Paradise created a bright line rule on matters involving the statutory construction of criminal statutes . . . namely, that the language of the statute itself must clearly necessitate a retrospective construction for one to be given”; (citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted) id., 624; we nevertheless reasoned that “the breadth of [our] holding in Paradise”; id.; is limited to “certain types of criminal statutes, such as a statute of limitations for the prosecution of a crime . . . .” Id., 625. In reaching this conclusion, we noted that, in In re Daniel H., we previously had “made clear that there are instances in which . . . Paradise . . . [does not prevent] this court from considering the legislative history of a criminal statute in determining whether such a statute should be applied retroactively.” Id. As we explained in Parra , “[i]n In re Daniel H., we determined whether a statutory amendment eliminating the right to an immediate appeal from an order transferring a juvenile matter to the regular criminal docket applied retroactively. . . . While we specifically held that the statutory amendment at issue was a criminal statute that affected substantive rights . . . we, nonetheless, looked to its legislative history to determine whether the amendment should be applied retroactively. . . . Thus, we did not limit our analysis to a determination of whether the language of the amendment clearly necessitated a retrospective application, but, rather, used the normal tools of statutory construction to determine the legislature’s intent on the issue of retroactive application of the amendment.” (Citations omitted.) Id.

*673 We further explained that the amendment at issue in Parra fell within “those other areas of the criminal process ... to which the holding of Paradise does not extend”; (citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted) id., 626; because the provision “affect[ed] an area of the criminal process far removed from the actual criminal conduct for which the defendant originally was charged. For example, [the amendment did] not change the elements of the crime with which the defendant was charged, alter the elements of his defense to that crime or make more burdensome the punishment for that crime, after its commission.” Id. Accordingly, we concluded that we were not restricted to the language of the amendment in deteimining whether the legislature had intended that it be applied retroactively; rather, the “proper test . . . [was] whether the language of [the amendment] or its legislative history . . . indicates that the legislature clearly and unequivocally intended for the statute to apply retroactively.” Id., 627. We noted, finally, that, because the pertinent legislative histoiy evinced a clear legislative intent to apply the amendment retroactively; id., 628; it was not necessary to determine whether the amendment was substantive or procedural. Id., 628 n.8.

With this background in mind, we now reexamine our conclusion in Paradise that P.A. 76-35, § 1, has prospective effect only. As we explain hereinafter, that conclusion is fundamentally flawed because it is founded solely on the mistaken premise that the rule of strict construction bars the presumption of retroactivity otherwise applicable to amendments to statutes of limitation. In view of our determination that our conclusion in Paradise rested on a faulty premise, we are obliged to take a fresh look at the issue of whether a criminal statute of limitations should be applied retroactively or prospectively in circumstances such as those of the present case, in which the legislature has not clearly *674 evinced an intent one way or the other. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that, with respect to those criminal offenses for which the applicable preamendment statute of limitations period has not yet expired, an amendment to that statute of limitations is presumptively retroactive. Because the limitation period of the pre-1976 amendment version of § 54-193 had not expired with respect to the offense in the present case prior to the effective date of the 1976 amendment, and because the legislature did not evince an intent to have the amendment apply prospectively only, we conclude that P.A. 76-35, § 1, provides the operative statute of limitations in the defendant’s case.

Of course, our ultimate objective in construing statutes is to discern and effectuate the apparent intent of the legislature. E.g., Cogan v. Manhattan Auto Financial Corp., 276 Conn. 1, 7 , 882 A.2d 597 (2005); State v. Ledbetter, 263 Conn. 1, 12 , 818 A.2d 1 (2003). Although that objective is the same for both civil and criminal statutes, we have recognized that certain principles of statutory construction bear special relevance to our interpretation of criminal statutes, one of which is the rule of strict construction. Thus, it has long been held that, “unless a contrary interpretation would frustrate an evident legislative intent, criminal statutes are governed by the fundamental principle that such statutes are strictly construed against the state.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, 264 Conn. 1, 69 , 836 A.2d 224 (2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 908 , 124 S. Ct. 1614 , 158 L. Ed. 2d 254 (2004). Indeed, the rule, which “is perhaps not much less old than construction itself’; United States v. Wiltberger, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 76, 95 , 5 L. Ed. 37 (1820); finds its roots in Sir Edward Coke’s opinion in Hey don’s Case, 76 Eng. Rep. 637 (Ex. 1584); see M. Radin, “A Short Way with Statutes,” 56 Harv. L. Rev. 388 , 389 (1942); and, in this state, it can be traced back to at least 1821. See Daggett v. State, 4 *675 Conn. 60, 63 (1821). Succinctly stated, “[t]he purpose of the rule of strict construction is ... to enable the people of the State to know clearly and precisely what acts the legislature has forbidden under a penalty, that they may govern their conduct accordingly, and to make sure that no act which the legislature did not intend to include will be held by the courts within the penalty of the law.” State v. Faro, 118 Conn. 267, 274 , 171 A. 660 (1934); accord State v. Zazzaro, 128 Conn. 160, 167 , 20 A.2d 737 (1941). “Strict construction is a means of assuring fairness to persons subject to the law by requiring penal statutes to give clear and unequivocal warning in language that people generally would understand, concerning actions that would expose them to liability for penalties and what the penalties would be.” 3 J. Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction (6th Ed. Singer 2001) § 59:3, p. 142. “Another reason for strict construction is to protect the individual against arbitrary discretion by officials and judges. ... A related argument is to the effect that since the power to declare what conduct is subject to penal sanctions is legislative rather than judicial, it would risk judicial usurpation of the legislative function for a court to enforce a penalty whe[n] the legislature had not clearly and unequivocally prescribed it.” Id., pp. 144-45.

The requirement that criminal statutes shall be strictly construed is therefore predicated on two fundamental principles. First, the public is entitled to fair notice of what the law forbids. Second, legislatures and not courts are responsible for defining criminal activity. Neither of these two principles is advanced, however, by applying the rule of strict construction to criminal statutes of limitation. Because the statutory limitation period has nothing to do with the scope or reach of the substantive offense, neither the public’s right to fair warning of the legislatively proscribed conduct nor the risk that the offense will be enlarged judicially beyond *676 the contemplation of the legislature is implicated by the statutory limitation period. Consequently, applying the rule of strict construction to criminal statutes of limitation would be “[t]o enforce the rule beyond its purpose [and, thereby] to exalt technicalities above substance.” State v. Faro, supra, 118 Conn. 274 .

Indeed, because criminal statutes of limitation do not define criminal conduct, establish the punishment to be imposed or otherwise burden defendants, such statutes are not truly penal at all. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. George, 430 Mass. 276, 279 , 717 N.E.2d 1285 (1999) (“[statutes of limitation do not define criminal conduct, are not penal statutes, and may not be subject to . . . strict construction against the [state]”). In fact, such statutes represent an expression of “legislative grace”; State v. Hodgson, 108 Wash. 2d 662, 667 , 740 P.2d 848 (1987), cert. denied sub nom. Fied v. Washington, 485 U.S. 938 , 108 S. Ct. 1117 , 99 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1988); for “they are a surrendering by the sovereign of its right to prosecute”; id.; after a specified period of time has elapsed from the acts constituting the offense. Put differently, because such statutes inure to the benefit of criminal defendants, it is illogical to characterize those statutes as penal for purposes of determining the proper approach to their construction. -

In Paradise , we did not explain our conclusion that § 54-193 is penal in nature, and, therefore, that that provision must be strictly construed. Indeed, we cited only one case, namely, State v. Anonymous (1976-6), 33 Conn. Sup. 34 , 358 A.2d 691 (1976) (Anonymous), to support that conclusion. See State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 352 . In State v. Anonymous (1976-6) , supra, 39, a judge of the Court of Common Pleas 37 concluded, also without analysis or explanation, that § 54-193 is a *677 penal statute and, therefore, subject to the canon of strict construction. In support of its assertion that § 54-193 is a penal statute, the court in Anonymous relied solely on State v. Bello, 133 Conn. 600 , 53 A.2d 381 (1947), a case in which this court affirmed the conviction of the defendant, Riggs Bello, for gambling. See id., 601, 604 . In Bello , however, we applied the canon of strict construction in connection with our interpretation of the antigambling statute itself, not any applicable statutory limitation period. See id., 604 . Thus, the cases that provide the basis for our conclusion in Paradise that § 54-193 is a penal statute to which the canon of strict construction applies simply do not support that conclusion.

Contrary to our determination in Paradise , § 54-193, like other criminal statutes of limitation, is remedial in nature. “The purpose of a statute of limitations is to limit exposure to criminal prosecution to a certain fixed period of time following the occurrence of those acts the legislature has decided to punish by criminal sanctions. Such a limitation is designed to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past. Such a time limit may also have the salutary effect of encouraging law enforcement officials promptly to investigate suspected criminal activity.” Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 114-15 , 90 S. Ct. 858 , 25 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1970). Indeed, it is because of the remedial nature of criminal statutes of limitation that they “are to be liberally interpreted in favor of repose.” 38 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 115 .

*678 In Paradise , the rule of strict construction provided the sole basis for our determination that P.A. 76-35, § 1, has prospective effect only. See State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 352 . Because we are not persuaded that that rule applies to criminal statutes of limitation, the validity of our holding in Paradise necessarily is suspect. 39 Even if we were to assume that the rule is applicable to such statutes, however, we see no reason why its application would lead inexorably to the presumption against retroactivity that we announced in Paradise . Indeed, as we had recognized long before Paradise , “[t]he rule of strict construction does not require that the narrowest technical meaning be given to the words employed in a criminal statute in disregard of their context and in frustration of the obvious legislative intent.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Faro, supra, 118 Conn. 274 . In other words, the principle of strict construction should not be applied in a manner that is “hostile” to an evident legislative pur *679 pose; State v. Levy, 103 Conn. 138, 141 , 130 A. 96 (1925); or in a way that is contrary to common sense. See State v. Reynolds, supra, 264 Conn. 70 . Thus, as a leading commentator on statutory construction has explained, “[t]he rule of strict construction is not the only factor which influences the interpretation of [criminal] laws. Instead, the rule is merely one among various aids which may be useful in determining the meaning of penal laws. This has been recognized time and again by the decisions, which frequently enunciate the principle that the intent of the legislature, or the meaning of the statute, must govern and that a strict construction should not be permitted to defeat the policy and purposes of the statute.” 3 J. Sutherland, supra, § 59:6, pp. 159-61. At a minimum, therefore, our reliance in Paradise on the canon of strict construction, to the exclusion of all other considerations, casts serious doubt on the validity of our conclusion. 40

For the foregoing reasons, we reject as logically unfounded our holding in Paradise that the canon of strict construction requires the conclusion that P.A. 76-35, § 1, has prospective effect only. We therefore must determine whether our conclusion in Paradise nevertheless was correct. We conclude that it was not.

It is axiomatic that, “[w]hether to apply a statute retroactively or prospectively depends upon the intent *680 of the legislature in enacting the statute.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Eden F., 250 Conn. 674, 695 , 741 A.2d 873 (1999). In seeking to discern that intent, “[o]ur point of departure is ... § 55-3, 41 which ... we have uniformly interpreted ... as a rule of presumed legislative intent that statutes affecting substantive rights shall apply prospectively only. . . . The Legislature only rebuts this presumption when it clearly and unequivocally expresses its intent that the legislation shall apply retrospectively.” 42 (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Rice v. Vermilyn Brown, Inc., 232 Conn. 780, 786 , 657 A.2d 616 (1995); see also Coley v. Camden Associates, Inc., 243 Conn. 311, 316 , 702 A.2d 1180 (1997). As a corollary to this principle, we also “have presumed that procedural or remedial statutes are intended to apply retroactively absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary . . . .” 43 Miano v. Thorne, 218 Conn. 170, 175 , 588 A.2d 189 (1991); accord In re Daniel H., supra, 237 Conn. 372 -73. “While there is no precise definition of either [substan *681 tive or procedural law], it is generally agreed that a substantive law creates, defines and regulates rights while a procedural law prescribes the methods of enforcing such rights or obtaining redress.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Carr v. Planning & Zoning Commission, 273 Conn. 573, 593 , 872 A.2d 385 (2005). Moreover, the “retroactive application of a law occurs only if the new or revised law was not yet in effect on the date that the relevant events underlying its application occurred.” State v. Faraday, 268 Conn. 174, 197 , 842 A.2d 567 (2004); see also State v. Breton, 264 Conn. 327, 421-22 , 824 A.2d 778 , cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1055 , 124 S. Ct. 819 , 157 L. Ed. 2d 708 (2003); In re Daniel H., supra, 377. Finally, in determining the retrospective applicability of any criminal statute, we must be mindful that the ex post facto clause of the United States constitution 44 bars any state from enacting “any law [that] imposes a punishment for an act [that] was not punishable at the time [that] it was committed; or imposes additional punishment to that then prescribed.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Weaver v. Graham, 450 U.S. 24, 28 , 101 S. Ct. 960 , 67 L. Ed. 2d 17 (1981). Although “a law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution”; (emphasis in original) Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 , 123 S. Ct. 2446 , 156 L. Ed. 2d 544 (2003); because it deprives the defendant of a fully vested defense to prosecution, the constitution “does not prevent the State from extending time limits . . . for prosecutions not yet time barred.” 45 (Emphasis added.) Id., 632 .

*682 Application of these considerations leads unmistakably to the conclusion that, subject to the limitations of the ex post facto clause, criminal statutes of limitation, including P. A. 76-35, § 1, should be accorded a presumption of retroactivity. Indeed, we long have held that civil statutes of limitation are presumed to apply retroactively because they do not affect or alter substantive rights. Roberts v. Caton, 224 Conn. 483, 488 , 619 A.2d 844 (1993); see, e.g., Jones Destruction, Inc. v. Upjohn, 161 Conn. 191, 195-96 , 286 A.2d 308 (1971). As we have explained, “[a] statute of limitations is generally considered to be procedural, [and therefore presumptively retroactive] especially whe[n] the statute contains only a limitation as to time with respect to a right of action and does not itself create the right of action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Moore v. McNamara, 201 Conn. 16, 22 , 513 A.2d 660 (1986); accord Roberts v. Caton, supra, 488 . “This is so because . . . the limitation merely acts as a bar to a remedy otherwise available.” Moore v. McNamara, supra, 22 . The fundamental purpose and effect of criminal statutes of limitation are the same as civil statutes of limitation; as the United States Supreme Court has stated in noting the similarities between such statutes, they both “represent a legislative judgment about the balance of equities in a situation involving the tardy assertion of otherwise valid rights: [t]he theory is that even if one has a just claim it is unjust not to put the adversary on notice to defend within the period of limitation and that the right to be free of stale claims in time comes to prevail over the right to prosecute them.” (Internal quotation marks *683 omitted.) United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 , 322-23 n.14, 92 S. Ct. 455 , 30 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1971). Because both criminal and civil statutes of limitation are predicated on the same general policy considerations and perform the same basic functions, it makes sense to treat them the same for the purpose of determining whether they give rise to a presumption of retroactive or prospective applicability, at least in the absence of good reason not to do so.

We know of no such reason. Unless the statute of limitations that was in effect when a crime was committed has expired with respect to that crime, a defendant accused of that crime has no right to have that limitation period applied to his conduct. Succinctly stated, “[statutes of limitations are measures of public policy only. They are entirely subject to the will of the legislature, and may be changed or repealed altogether in any case [in which] a right to acquittal has not been absolutely acquired by the completion of the [original] period of limitation. Such a statute is an act of grace in criminal prosecutions. The State makes no contract with criminals at the time of the passage of acts of limitations that they shall have immunity from punishment if not prosecuted within the statutory period.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) People v. Isaacs, 37 Ill. 2d 205, 229 , 226 N.E.2d 38 (1967); accord State v. Petrucelli, 156 Vt. 382, 383 , 592 A.2d 365 (1991); see also State v. Hodgson, supra, 108 Wash. 2d 668 (“until the [criminal] statute [of limitations] has run it is a mere regulation of the remedy . . . subject to legislative control” [internal quotation marks omitted]). In such cases, a defendant also has no legitimate expectancy interest in the application of that limitation period: defendants do not engage in criminal conduct with an eye on the then applicable statute of limitations, and, even if they did, *684 society, for obvious reasons, is not prepared to recognize any such reliance as reasonable. 46

*685 The canon of statutory construction that procedural or remedial statutes are to be applied retroactively in the absence of a contrary legislative intent is grounded in the presumption that the legislature intended that result because such retroactive application will most broadly and comprehensively effectuate the legislative policy embodied in the enactment without upsetting any settled rights or reliance interests. Labeling a statute as substantive or procedural, however, will not always resolve the fundamental issue of legislative intent. 47 Thus, we have recognized that “[t]he test of whether a statute is to apply retroactively, absent an express legislative intent, is not a purely mechanical one and even if it is a procedural statute, which ordinarily will be applied retroactively without a legislative imperative to the contrary, it will not be applied retroactively if *686 considerations of good sense and justice dictate that it not be so applied.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Lizotte, 200 Conn. 734, 741 , 517 A.2d 610 (1986); see also In re Daniel H., supra, 237 Conn. 372 -73 (“[Although we have presumed that procedural or remedial statutes are intended to apply retroactively absent a clear expression of legislative intent to the contrary ... a statute which, in form, provides but a change in remedy but actually brings about changes in substantive rights is not subject to retroactive application. . . . The rule is one of obvious justice and prevents the assigning of a quality or effect to acts or conduct which they did not have or did not contemplate when they were performed.” [Internal quotation marks omitted.]).

Considerations of good sense and justice dictate that a court give retroactive effect to a criminal statute of limitations, absent an indication of a contrary legislative intent, when, as in the present case, that retroactive application does not revive a prosecution already time barred by a previous limitation period. As we noted previously, statutes of limitation “represent legislative assessments of relative interests of the State and the defendant in administering and receiving justice”; United States v. Marion, supra, 404 U.S. 322 ; and as such, they reflect the legislature’s considered judgment as to the “difficult balance between the public demand for justice and the [interest] of the individual to be free from the continual threat of prosecution for past misconduct.” State v. Ellis, supra, 197 Conn. 458 n.18 . When the legislature implements that policy decision by modifying, through amendment, a preexisting criminal limitation period, we can conceive of no logical reason why the legislature would not have intended for that new limitation period to apply to all offenses that were not previously time barred under the original provision. Put differently, it is unreasonable to presume that the *687 legislature would have intended that the exact same crimes shall be subject to different limitation periods merely because of the fortuity that one defendant committed the crime the day before the enactment of the amendment to the limitation period while another defendant committed the identical crime the day after the enactment of that amendment.

Furthermore, as we observed in Paradise , the language of P.A. 76-35, § 1, sheds no light on whether the legislature intended for that amendment to have retroactive effect. State v. Paradise, supra, 189 Conn. 353 . In Paradise , however, we limited our retroactivity analysis to the language of the amendment; see id.; and did not consider the amendment’s legislative history. To the extent that the legislative history may be deemed to have a bearing on that issue, it is scant. As we noted in State v. Golino, supra, 201 Conn. 445 , and State v. Ellis, supra, 197 Conn. 460 , however, Senator David H. Neiditz, the sponsor of the amendment, indicated that it was intended to clarify existing law. See 19 S. Proc., Pt. 1, 1976 Sess., p. 341. It is well established that legislation deemed to be clarifying generally is accorded retroactive effect. E.g., Andersen Consulting, LLP v. Gavin, 255 Conn. 498, 517 , 767 A.2d 692 (2001); Toise v. Rowe, 243 Conn. 623, 628 , 707 A.2d 25 (1998). Although not conclusive, Senator Neiditz’ comment supports our determination that P. A. 76-35, § 1, has retroactive applicability. 48

Moreover, our conclusion that an amendment to a criminal statute of limitations is presumptively applicable to crimes not previously barred by the original limitation period is supported by the considerable weight of authority. See, e.g., People v. Sample, 161 Cal. App. *688 3d 1053 , 1058, 208 Cal. Rptr. 318 (1984); State v. O’Neill, 118 Idaho 244, 248 , 796 P.2d 121 (1990); People v. Isaacs, supra, 37 Ill. 2d 229 ; State v. Schultzen, 522 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Iowa 1994); State v. Nunn, 244 Kan. 207, 217 , 768 P.2d 268 (1989); Commonwealth v. Bargeron, 402 Mass. 589, 593-94 , 524 N.E.2d 829 (1988); People v. Russo, 439 Mich. 584, 594-97 , 487 N.W.2d 698 (1992); Christmas v. State, 700 So. 2d 262, 266-67 (Miss. 1997); State v. Hirsch, 245 Neb. 31, 43-44 , 511 N.W.2d 69 (1994); State v. Hamel, 138 N.H. 392, 395-96 , 643 A.2d 953 (1994); State v. Nagle, 226 N.J. Super. 513, 516 , 545 A.2d 182 (1988); People ex rel. Reibman v. Warden of County Jail, 242 App. Div. 282, 284-85 , 275 N.Y.S. 59 (1934); People v. Pfitzmayer, 72 Misc. 2d 739, 741-42 , 340 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1972); State v. Buchholz, 678 N.W.2d 144, 149 (N.D. 2004); State v. Dufort, 111 Or. App. 515, 519 , 827 P.2d 192 (1992); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 520 Pa. 165, 170 , 553 A.2d 897 (1989); State v. Wolfe, 61 S.D. 195, 199 , 247 N.W. 407 (1933); Rose v. State, 716 S.W.2d 162, 165 (Tex. App. 1986, pet. ref'd), cert. denied, 486 U.S. 1055 , 108 S. Ct. 2822 , 100 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1988); State v. Lusk, 37 P.3d 1103, 1109-10 (Utah 2001); State v. Petrucelli, supra, 156 Vt. 383 -84; State v. Hodgson, supra, 108 Wash. 2d 665 -68; see also 21 Am. Jur. 2d 349-50, Criminal Law § 294 (1998) (“Whe[n] a statute extends the period of limitation, the extension applies to offenses not barred at the time of the passage of the act, so that a prosecution may be commenced at any time within the newly established period. Such a statute, however, cannot operate to revive offenses that were barred at the time of its enactment, since that would make the statute ex post facto.”). Although several courts have concluded otherwise; see, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 512 F.2d 105, 106 (3d Cir. 1975); Stoner v. State, 418 So. 2d 171, 178 (Ala. Crim. App.), cert. denied, 418 So. 2d 184 (Ala. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1128 , 103 S. Ct. 764 , 74 L. Ed. 2d 978 (1983); *689 Martin v. Superior Court, 135 Ariz. 99, 100 , 659 P.2d 652 (1983); State ex rel. Manucy v. Wadsworth, 293 So. 2d 345, 347 (Fla. 1974); State v. Merolla, 100 Nev. 461, 464 , 686 P.2d 244 (1984); the courts in those cases relied solely on the faulty premise that the result was dictated by the canon of strict construction. Because those cases, like Paradise , are founded on the same rote and erroneous application of that interpretative principle— we have not found one such case in which the court engaged in any meaningful analysis of the issue—they suffer from the same logical infirmity as Paradise .

Our conclusion today also resolves a tension between our mode of analysis in Paradise and the approach to the construction of statutes in the criminal realm that we have employed more recently in cases such as In re Michael S., 258 Conn. 621 , 784 A.2d 317 (2001), State v. Parra, supra, 251 Conn. 617 , and In re Daniel H., supra, 237 Conn. 364 . In each of those latter cases, we expressly recognized that the focus of our inquiry was the presumed intent of the legislature, and we thereafter proceeded to identify various relevant interpretative aids, including the canon of construction that procedural statutes cany a presumption of retroactivity, as a means to that fundamental end. See, e. g., In re Michael S., supra, 627-29; In re Daniel H., supra, 372-73, 376. In Paradise , by contrast, our statutory interpretation was guided solely by the rule of strict construction, an approach that, as we have explained, was unduly cramped and formalistic.

Moreover, in Parra , we acknowledged that the rule that we had announced in Paradise does not extend to those areas of the criminal process that bear only a remote connection to the criminal conduct for which the defendant was charged. State v. Parra, supra, 251 Conn. 626 . By way of illustration, we noted that the amendatory provision at issue in Parra did “not change the elements of the crime with which the defendant *690 was charged, alter the elements of his defense to that crime or make more burdensome the punishment for that crime, after its commission.” 49 Id. The same can be said of criminal statutes of limitation because they also do not purport to define or regulate criminal conduct in any way. We therefore see no reason why a criminal limitation period should not be included among those provisions that, although a part of our system of criminal laws, nevertheless carry a presumption of retroactivity.

In reaching this conclusion, we are mindful, of course, of the doctrine of stare decisis, which “counsels that a court should not overrule its earlier decisions unless the most cogent reasons and inescapable logic require it. . . . Stare decisis is justified because it allows for predictability in the ordering of conduct, it promotes the necessary perception that the law is relatively unchanging, it saves resources and it promotes judicial efficiency. ... It is the most important application of a theory of decisionmaking consistency in our legal culture and it is an obvious manifestation of the notion that decisionmaking consistency itself has normative value.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) St. George v. Gordon, 264 Conn. 538 , 553-54 n.16, 835 *691 A.2d 90 (2003). Stare decisis, however, “is not an end in itself. . . . Experience can and often does demonstrate that a rule, once believed sound, needs modification to serve justice better. . . . The flexibility and capacity of the common law is its genius for growth and adaptation.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Brocuglio, 264 Conn. 778, 793 , 826 A.2d 145 (2003). Indeed, “[i]f law is to have current relevance, courts must have and exert the capacity to change a rule of law when reason so requires.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Vakilzaden, 251 Conn. 656, 663 , 742 A.2d 767 (1999). “[Thus] [t]his court . . . has recognized many times that there are exceptions to the rule of stare decisis.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

We also acknowledge that, “[i]n assessing the force of stare decisis, our case law has emphasized that we should be especially cautious about overturning a case that concerns statutory construction. . . . Despite this reluctance, however, we have, on occasion, overruled cases that have involved the interpretation of a statute. . . . Thus the fact that there is preexisting case law on point is not, in and of itself, determinative of the issue presently before us.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Waterbury v. Washington, 260 Conn. 506, 538 , 800 A.2d 1102 (2002). It is important to note, moreover, that the holding of Paradise was considerably more far-reaching than our conclusion therein that P.A. 76-35 has prospective effect only: we also held, in the exercise of our common-law authority, that all criminal statutes of limitation are to be applied prospectively unless the language of the statute clearly expresses a contrary intent. 50 The breadth of our holding *692 in Paradise—involving, as it does, a common-law rule of statutory construction—necessarily tempers our traditional reluctance to upset the settled interpretation of a particular statute. 51 Because “a judicious reconsideration of precedent cannot be as threatening to public *693 faith in the judiciary as continued adherence to a rule unjustified in reason . . . [we are confident that] [r]espect for the process of adjudication [will] be enhanced, not diminished, by our ruling [in the present case].” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U.S. 375, 405 , 90 S. Ct. 1772 , 26 L. Ed. 2d 339 (1970).

To summarize, the rationale of Paradise does not withstand careful analysis. Although we will not lightly reverse long-standing precedent, we are unwilling to compound the error that we made in Paradise by approving it again today. Our responsibility to reconsider prior decisions of this court when a party has so requested, together with our firm conviction that Paradise was wrongly decided, prevent us from doing so. We conclude, therefore, that an amendment to a criminal statute of limitations applies to a crime committed prior to the enactment of the amendment, in the absence of a clear expression of legislative intent to the contraiy, as long as the preamendment limitation period had not yet expired when the amendment became effective. Because there is no indication that the legislature intended that P.A. 76-35, § 1, was to have prospective effect only, that amendment, contrary to our conclusion in Paradise , applies retroactively to crimes that were committed before its effective date but for which the preamendment limitation period had not yet expired. Consequently, P.A. 76-35, § 1, applies to the October, 1975 murder of the victim. Because the defendant had no vested statute of limitations defense prior to the enactment of P.A. 76-35, § 1, and because that provision excludes all class A felonies, including murder, from its five year limitation period, the state’s prosecution of the defendant for the victim’s murder was not time barred.

Ill

The defendant next claims that the state improperly withheld certain exculpatory evidence, namely, a com *694 posite drawing of a man observed walking near the crime scene on the evening of October 30, 1975, and two reports prepared by a state investigator profiling Kenneth Littleton and Thomas Skakel as potential suspects. The defendant further claims that the state’s failure to disclose that evidence deprived him of his right to a fair trial in violation of Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. 83 , and its progeny. We reject each of these claims, which we address in turn.

A

The following facts and procedural history are necessary to our resolution of the defendant’s claim that the state violated his rights under Brady by failing to disclose the composite drawing. On May 21, 2001, the defendant filed a pretrial motion for disclosure and production, requesting, inter alia, that the state disclose any “ [ijnformation and/or material which is exculpatory in nature,” including “[pjhotographs, composite sketches or other media replications that depict the likeness or physical attributes of [any] alleged perpetrator of this crime.” 52 The state, which had indicated that it was adopting an open file policy for purposes of the case, did not object to this particular request, and, on August 15,2001, the trial court issued an order requiring that the state comply with this and all other discovery requests to which the state had not objected. In accordance with its open file policy and the court’s order pertaining to discovery, the state provided the defendant with numerous reports and documents relating to the investigation of the case.

One such report states that, on October 31, 1975, investigating officers searching the general vicinity of the murder scene were approached by special officer *695 Charles Morganti, Jr. Morganti informed the officers that he had been on special duty patrol of the Belle Haven neighborhood the previous evening when, at about 10 p.m., he observed a white male walking in a northerly direction on Field Point Road. Morganti then observed the man turn onto Walsh Lane. Morganti approached the individual and asked him where he was going. The individual replied that he lived on Walsh Lane and that he was going home. Morganti further reported to the officers that he obseived the man again, a few minutes later, walking northbound on Otter Rock Drive, just north of the Walsh Lane intersection. 53

A second such report reflects the fact that Morganti was interviewed by the police again the following day. That report states that Morganti had agreed to “appear at the [d]etective [b]ureau for the purpose of putting [together] a composite picture of the subject that he had observed on Field Point [Road] near Walsh [Lane] on Thursday, [October 30, 1975].”

Another police report indicates that, on November 5, 1975, the police interviewed Carl Wold, a resident of Walsh Lane in the Belle Haven neighborhood. Wold informed the police that, at about 7:20 p.m. on October 30, 1975, he went out for his nightly walk. According to Wold, he walked east on Walsh Lane, turned right onto Field Point Road and then turned south toward Field Point Circle. 54 He recalled having a short conversation with an officer at the Field Point police booth and, *696 later, on his way home, being stopped by a special police officer on Field Point Road, just south of the Walsh Lane intersection. This officer had inquired of Wold where he was headed, and Wold responded that he was returning to his home on Walsh Lane. Wold further stated that he returned home at about 8 p.m. and remained there for rest of the evening. 55 Wold denied walking on Otter Rock Drive that evening. 56

Approximately nineteen years later, on October 8, 1994, Inspector Frank Garr of the office of the state’s attorney interviewed Morganti again. 57 The written report of that interview reflects that Morganti informed Garr that James F. Muiphy, a private investigator who had been retained by the Skakel family, had contacted him and questioned him about the “incident involving the individual [that Morganti had] stopped on Field Point Road, in Belle Haven” on the evening of October 30,1975. Morganti also told Garr that he saw that person walking north on Field Point Road at approximately 8 p.m. that evening. Morganti further stated that he was replacing a fallen road stanchion just north of the residence of Cynthia Bjork on Otter Rock Drive sometime between 9:30 and 10 p.m. that evening when, from a distance of approximately one hundred yards, he observed the same individual “walking in a northerly *697 direction through the front yard of a residence on Otter Rock Drive, across from the Skakel residence.” 58 The report also states that, at the time of the original police investigation of the victim’s murder, “Morganti reported the entire episode to the [police] investigators and assisted in the making of a composite sketch of the individual. A complete investigation into the matter was instigated, and it was determined that the individual was . . . Carl Wold.” The report further states that Garr, who was accompanied by Murphy and, apparently, Morganti, then proceeded to the location on Otter Rock Drive where Morganti recalled having observed the individual for a second time on the evening of October 30, 1975. 59

Following the jury verdict and shortly before sentencing, the defendant, on August 26,2002, filed an amended motion for a new trial and request for an evidentiary hearing, 60 claiming, inter alia, that the state had violated his rights under Brady by failing to make a timely disclosure of a composite drawing of the individual who Morganti had observed on the evening of October 30,1975. 61 In support of his claim, the defendant asserted that the state had not provided him with a copy of that drawing *698 until August 21, 2002, 62 and that the drawing was significant because it tended to buttress his third party culpability defense. In particular, the defendant asserted that the composite drawing bore a strong resemblance to Littleton, a former suspect in the victim’s murder whom the defendant, in support of his third party culpability defense, had identified as a likely perpetrator. The defendant farther maintained that, although the state had concluded that Wold was the person who Morganti had observed near the crime scene at or near the time of the victim’s murder, discrepancies in Wold’s and Morganti’s statements as to when Morganti saw Wold cast doubt on the state’s conclusion.

The trial court heard argument on the defendant’s motion on August 28, 2002, the same day that the sentencing hearing commenced. At the hearing on the defendant’s motion, defense counsel represented that, despite the state’s open file policy in the case, the composite drawing was not among the materials that the state had made available to the defendant’s trial counsel prior to trial. 63 Defense counsel further represented that the state had provided the defendant’s trial counsel with 1806 pages of discovery in connection with the case. 64

During the argument, the trial court asked the defendant’s trial counsel whether he had received, prior to *699 trial, the 1975 investigative report that refers to Morganti’s willingness to participate in the creation of a composite drawing, and the 1994 investigative report that refers to a completed composite drawing. The defendant’s trial counsel answered in the affirmative with respect to both reports. At the conclusion of the argument, the court denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial and for an evidentiary hearing on that motion. 65 On appeal, the defendant renews his claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by virtue of the state’s failure to produce the composite drawing prior to trial. 66

Our analysis of the defendant’s claim begins with the pertinent standard, set forth in Brady and its progeny, by which we determine whether the state’s failure to disclose evidence has violated a defendant’s right to a fair trial. In Brady , the United States Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith *700 or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady v. Maryland, supra, 373 U.S. 87 . In Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 , 119 S. Ct. 1936 , 144 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1999), the United States Supreme Court identified the three essential components of a Brady claim, all of which must be established to warrant a new trial: “The evidence at issue must be favorable to the accused, either because it is exculpatory, or because it is impeaching; that evidence must have been suppressed by the State, either willfully or inadvertently; and prejudice must have ensued.” Id., 281-82; see also State v. Wilcox, 254 Conn. 441, 452 , 758 A.2d 824 (2000) (“[t]o establish a Brady violation, the defendant must show that [1] the government suppressed evidence, [2] the suppressed evidence was favorable to the defendant, and [3] it was material [either to guilt or to punishment]” [internal quotation marks omitted]). Under the last Brady prong, the prejudice that the defendant suffered as a result of the impropriety must have been material to the case, such that “the favorable evidence could reasonably be taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict.” Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435 , 115 S. Ct. 1555 , 131 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1995). The trial court concluded that the defendant had failed to demonstrate either that the composite drawing was suppressed or that it was material. For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the defendant cannot show that the state suppressed the composite drawing for purposes of Brady. Consequently, we need not, and, therefore, do not, reach his claim concerning the materiality prong of the Brady test. 67

*701 For purposes of this appeal, we presume that the state did not provide the defendant with a copy of the drawing prior to August 21, 2002. 68 To the extent that the state failed to do so, that failure constituted a violation of the open file policy to which the state had announced it would adhere in the case. 69 That fact alone, however, is not dispositive of the defendant’s claim regarding the suppression component of Brady because it is well established that “evidence is not considered to have been suppressed within the meaning of the Brady doctrine if the defendant or his attorney either knew, or should have known, of the essential facts permitting him to take advantage of [that] evidence.” (Emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.) *702 United States v. Payne, 63 F.3d 1200, 1208 (2d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1165 , 116 S. Ct. 1056 , 134 L. Ed. 2d 201 (1996); accord United States v. Zichettello, 208 F.3d 72, 103 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. denied sub nom. Lysaght v. United States, 531 U.S. 1143 , 121 S. Ct. 1077 , 148 L. Ed. 2d 954 (2001); see also United States v. LeRoy, 687 F.2d 610, 618 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174 , 103 S. Ct. 823 , 74 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1983). The rationale underlying this exception to the state’s disclosure obligation under Brady is obvious: Brady is designed to assure that the defendant is not denied access to exculpatory evidence known or available to the state but unknown or unavailable to him. See, e.g., United States v. LeRoy, supra, 619; United States v. Ruggiero, 472 F.2d 599, 604 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 412 U.S. 939 , 93 S. Ct. 2772 , 37 L. Ed. 2d 398 (1973). It is not intended either to relieve the defense of its obligation diligently to seek evidence favorable to it or to permit the defense to close its eyes to information likely to lead to the discovery of such evidence. Thus, the composite drawing will not be deemed to have been suppressed by the state, notwithstanding the open file policy in effect in this case, if the defendant or the defendant’s trial counsel reasonably was on notice of the drawing’s existence but nevertheless failed to take appropriate steps to obtain it. See, e.g., United States v. LeRoy, supra, 618-19 (defendant cannot prevail under Brady if he was on notice of essential facts that would have enabled him to take advantage of exculpatory evidence but he failed to do so).

We agree with the finding of the trial court that, in the present case, the defendant or his trial counsel clearly was on notice of the existence of the composite drawing. First, the 1975 investigative report refers to the fact that Morganti had agreed to return to police headquarters to assist in the preparation of a composite drawing of the person he had observed in the vicinity *703 of the crime scene on the evening of October 30, 1975. Second, the 1994 investigative report states that Morganti had “assisted in the making of a composite sketch of [that] individual.” Thus, as the defendant had noted in the memorandum that he filed with the trial court in support of his amended motion for a new trial, “[t]he circumstances surrounding the preparation of the sketch are provided in the police reports prepared during the investigation.” Finally, the state provided the defendant and his trial counsel with those reports during discovery, and the defendant’s trial counsel acknowledged that he was aware of them. The defendant or his trial counsel, therefore, had actual notice of the existence of the composite drawing and, consequently, the defendant was obliged to supplement his general Brady request with a specific request for that particular piece of evidence. 70

Moreover, the defendant was well aware of Morganti’s potential significance as a witness long before trial. Indeed, Murphy, the defendant’s investigator, interviewed Morganti in 1994 and, together with Garr and Morganti, went to the location where Morganti had observed the individual who the defendant contends may have been Littleton. It is well known, of course, that police investigators routinely use composite drawings to aid in identifying potential suspects, and the defendant’s investigator, who had unfettered access to Morganti, had every opportunity to ask Morganti if he had assisted the police in creating one. 71

*704 The defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to conclude that the 1975 and 1994 investigative reports were sufficient notice of the existence of the composite drawing because those reports were “buried” among 1806 pages of other documents produced by the state. This argument founders on the acknowledgment of the defendant’s own trial counsel that he was aware of the two reports. Moreover, the defendant makes no claim that the reports were disclosed late or that he or his trial counsel otherwise did not have ample time, opportunity or resources to consider them. 72

The defendant also contends that, notwithstanding the existence of the 1975 and 1994 reports, he did not have adequate notice of the exculpatory nature of the *705 composite drawing. This claim is predicated on the defendant’s dual assertion that: (1) he could not have known the exculpatory value of the drawing until he saw it and compared it to a photograph of Littleton; and (2) the 1994 report indicated that, in the view of the police, the person depicted in the drawing was Wold, who was not a suspect in the victim’s murder. Neither of these assertions is reason to excuse the defendant’s failure to have requested the drawing. The defendant had a duty to request the composite drawing because it was potentially exculpatory, irrespective of what the state may have thought about the drawing’s import. In other words, the defendant could not wait until the completion of the trial to ascertain the value of the drawing to his defense; rather, he was obligated to obtain that evidence and to evaluate its utility prior to trial.

The defendant further argues that he cannot be faulted for failing to make a specific request for the composite drawing, despite the references to the drawing in the reports he did receive, because he was entitled to conclude that, in light of the state’s open file policy, the state would have produced the drawing if it existed. In support of this contention, the defendant cites a number of cases that have articulated the general principle that a defendant normally may rely on the government’s representation that it has made full disclosure of information to which the defendant is entitled under Brady. E.g., Strickler v. Greene, supra, 527 U.S. 284 ; see also United States v. Payne, supra, 63 F.3d 1207 -1208. In each of those cases, however, the court also indicated that defense counsel had no reason to know that the government’s disclosure was less than complete. See Strickler v. Greene, supra, 284; United States v. Payne, supra, 1208 . In the present case, by contrast, the defendant or his trial counsel had actual notice of the existence of the allegedly exculpatory evidence, yet *706 failed to notify the state that it had not provided them with a copy of it. The defendant has cited no case, and we are aware of none, in which a defendant had notice of the existence of potentially exculpatory evidence but nevertheless was excused by the court from taking reasonable steps to obtain it. We, too, decline to endorse such an approach because there simply is no reason why a defendant who is aware of such evidence should not be required to seek it at a point in time when any potential constitutional infirmity arising from the state’s failure to provide the evidence can be avoided without the need for a new trial. 73

Furthermore, the defendant’s contention that he reasonably believed that his responsibility to obtain Brady material ended with the state’s announcement of an open file policy is belied by the record. In particular, long after that announcement, the defendant filed two supplemental written requests for the disclosure of exculpatory evidence under Brady. One such request was made during jury selection, the other shortly after the commencement of trial, and each was considerably more specific than the defendant’s initial Brady request. 74 It is apparent, in light of those supplemental *707 requests, that the defendant knew of his continuing responsibility to identify and seek exculpatory material under Brady despite the state’s open file policy. Cf. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682-83 , 105 S. Ct. 3375 , 87 L. Ed. 2d 481 (1985) (“the more specifically the defense requests certain evidence, thus putting the prosecutor on notice of its value, the more reasonable it is for the defense to assume from the nondisclosure that the evidence does not exist”).

We conclude, therefore, that the facts fully support the trial court’s determination that the defendant failed to establish that the state suppressed the composite drawing within the meaning of Brady. Consequently, the defendant cannot prevail on his claim that he is entitled to a new trial by virtue of the state’s failure to provide him with a copy of the composite drawing prior to trial.

B

The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly rejected his contention that the state had violated his rights under Brady by failing to provide him with two reports, authored by state investigators, profiling Littleton and Thomas Skakel as possible suspects. We also reject this claim.

The factual and procedural background relevant to this claim may be summarized as follows. On May 13, 2002, John F. Solomon, a former supervisory inspector with the office of the state’s attorney in the judicial district of Fairfield, testified outside the presence of the jury concerning issues that were raised in a motion then pending before the court. During his testimony, Solomon referred to a copy of a report that he had prepared in connection with the investigation of the victim’s murder. Solomon characterized that report, which he wrote in 1992, as a profile of Littleton summarizing why, at the time the report was written, Littleton *708 was considered a suspect. Immediately after Solomon referred to the report, the defendant’s trial counsel requested a copy, to which the court responded: “Not right now. You are talking about examining the witness.” At that same proceeding, the state elicited testimony from Solomon indicating that he had prepared a similar profile of Thomas Skakel, who, at one time, also was a suspect in the victim’s murder.

The defendant failed to renew his request for those reports before the conclusion of the trial, and his original motion for a new trial, which was timely filed on June 12, 2002, 75 did not refer to the two reports. The defendant did raise the issue, however, in his amended motion for a new trial, which was filed on August 26, 2002, claiming that the state had withheld the profiles of Littleton and Thomas Skakel in violation of its obligation under Brady to disclose exculpatory evidence. At the August 28,2002 hearing on the defendant’s amended motion for a new trial, the state asserted that the defendant’s claim was time barred because it had not been raised until long after the expiration of the five day period for the filing of such motions prescribed by Practice Book § 42-54, 76 and just prior to the sentencing hearing that also was scheduled to commence on that same day. The state also maintained that the two reports were internal office documents and, therefore, exempt from discovery under Practice Book § 40-14 77 and the *709 work product doctrine, 78 and that it had turned over to the defendant all of the factual information contained in the reports prior to trial, in accordance with the court’s discoveiy order. After reviewing the two reports in camera, the trial court rejected the defendant’s claim, concluding that: (1) the defendant had failed to renew his request for the reports during trial; (2) the claim otherwise was untimely because it had not been made within the five day period specified by Practice Book § 42-54, and the defendant had proffered no justification for the untimely claim; and (3) the reports appeared to be work product that is exempt from discovery under Practice Book § 40-14. 79 The court also noted that it had no reason to question the state’s representation that the state had provided the defendant with all of the data contained in the two reports during pretrial discovery. Because the discovery documents containing those data had not been filed with the court, however, the court also observed that it had not conducted an independent review of the documents to confirm the accuracy of the state’s representation. The court further indicated that, in light of that fact, its rejection of the defendant’s claim did not rest on the state’s contention that the defendant previously had been provided with all of the factual information contained in the two reports. Finally, at the conclusion of the hearing and after the *710 court had denied the defendant’s amended motion for a new trial, the defendant requested permission to file with the court the 1806 pages of documents that the state had turned over to him during pretrial discovery. 80 The trial court granted the defendant’s request, and the documents were marked for identification only. 81

Although we also have no reason to doubt the state’s representation that it had provided the defendant, in advance of trial, with all of the data contained in the two reports, that representation also need not be the basis for our resolution of the defendant’s claim. Rather, we conclude that the trial court acted within its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s claim on the ground that the defendant had failed to raise it in a timely manner under Practice Book § 42-54. Even though the defendant became aware of the two reports during trial, he did not raise a Brady challenge to the state’s failure to provide him with the reports until two and one-half months after the five day limitation period of Practice Book § 42-54 had expired. The defendant provided the trial court with no reason for the delay, and he has not offered one on appeal. Moreover, because the defendant did not provide the court and the state with copies of the 1806 pages of discovery documents until after the hearing on the defendant’s amended motion for a new trial, the court could not ascertain, prior to ruling on the defendant’s claim, whether, as the state had maintained, the data contained in those discovery documents had *711 been provided to the defendant prior to trial. We conclude, therefore, that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting the defendant’s claim as time barred.

IV

The defendant next claims that the state’s use of the prior testimony of Gregory Coleman violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. 82 We disagree.

The following additional facts are necessary to our resolution of this claim. Coleman, a former resident of the Elan School, testified for the state at the defendant’s probable cause hearing in April, 2001. Coleman testified that, one night in 1978, while Coleman and the defendant were residents at Elan, the defendant told Coleman that he had killed the victim with a golf club. Coleman, a heroin addict who acknowledged that he was suffering from withdrawal symptoms during his probable cause hearing testimony, was subject to cross-examination at that hearing. Coleman died in August, 2001, prior to the defendant’s trial. At trial, the state, over the objection of the defendant, introduced into evidence a transcript of Coleman’s probable cause hearing testimony under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule. See Conn. Code Evid. § 8-6 (l). 83

*712 “With respect to the principles that govern application of the hearsay rule in criminal cases, [a]n out-of-court statement offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted is hearsay. ... As a general rule, such hearsay statements are inadmissible unless they fall within a recognized exception to the hearsay rule. . . .

“Beyond [applicable] evidentiary principles, the state’s use of hearsay evidence against an accused in a criminal trial is limited by the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. . . . The sixth amendment to the constitution of the United States guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to be confronted with the witnesses against him. This right is secured for defendants in state criminal proceedings. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 , [403] 85 S. Ct. 1065 , 13 L. Ed. 2d 923 (1965). . . . [T]he primary interest secured by confrontation is the right of cross-examination. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315 , 94 S. Ct. 1105 , 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974). . . .

“In defining the specific limits of the confrontation clause, the United States Supreme Court consistently has held that the confrontation clause does not erect a per se bar to the admission of hearsay statements against criminal defendants. ... At the same time, [although . . . hearsay rules and the [confrontation [c]lause are generally designed to protect similar values, [the court has] also been careful not to equate the [confrontation [c]lause’s prohibitions with the general rule prohibiting the admission of hearsay statements. . . . The [c]onfrontation [c]lause, in other words, bars the admission of some evidence that would otherwise be admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule. . . .

“Traditionally, for purposes of the confrontation clause, all hearsay statements were admissible if (1) the declarant was unavailable to testify, and (2) the statement bore adequate indicia of reliability. Ohio v. *713 Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 , 100 S. Ct. 2531 , 65 L. Ed. 2d 597 (1980). . . . [H]owever, the United States Supreme Court [subsequently] overruled Roberts to the extent that it applied to testimonial hearsay statements. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68 , 124 S. Ct. 1354 , 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). In Crawford , the court concluded that the reliability standard set forth in the second prong of the Roberts test is too amorphous to prevent adequately the improper admission of core testimonial statements that the [confrontation [c]lause plainly meant to exclude. . . . The court held, therefore, that such testimonial hearsay statements may be admitted as evidence against an accused at a criminal trial only when (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify, and (2) the defendant had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. . . .

“In so concluding, the court drew a distinction between testimonial hearsay statements and those deemed nontestimonial. Where nontestimonial hearsay is at issue, it is wholly consistent with the Framers’ design to afford the [sjtates flexibility in their development of hearsay law—as does Roberts, and as would an approach that exempted such statements from [confrontation [c]lause scrutiny altogether. ... In other words, nontestimonial hearsay statements may still be admitted as evidence against an accused in a criminal trial if it satisfies both prongs of the Roberts test, irrespective of whether the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

“Although the court declined to define the terms testimonial and nontestimonial, it considered three formulations of th[e] core class of testimonial statements .... The first formulation consists of ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent—that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would rea *714 sonably expect to be used prosecutorially .... The second formulation consists of extrajudicial statements . . . contained in formalized testimonial materials, such as affidavits, depositions, prior testimony, or confessions .... Finally, the third formulation consists of statements that were made under circumstances which would lead an objective witness reasonably to believe that the statement would be available for use at a later trial .... The court did not adopt any one particular formulation, noting that [t]hese formulations all share a common nucleus and then define the [clause's coverage at various levels of abstraction around it.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 815-18 , 882 A.2d 604 (2005).

The testimony at issue in the present case, namely, Coleman’s prior probable cause hearing testimony, falls squarely within Crawford’s core class of testimonial evidence. Accordingly, the confrontation clause bars the state’s use of that testimony unless Coleman was unavailable to testify at trial and the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine Coleman at the probable cause hearing. Coleman’s unavailability, due to his death, is undisputed. With respect to the defendant’s prior opportunity to cross-examine Coleman, our review of the record of Coleman’s probable cause hearing testimony indicates that the defendant’s trial counsel questioned Coleman extensively, underscoring Coleman’s struggle with drug addiction, his prior acts of misconduct, his prior inconsistent statements about the subject matter of his testimony, his lack of recollection due to the passage of time and ongoing drug abuse, and his failure to report the defendant’s alleged confession either to Elan administrators or to law enforcement authorities. Indeed, the defendant does not seriously contest the fact that his trial counsel fully availed himself of the opportunity to *715 attack Coleman’s credibility vigorously at the probable cause hearing.

The defendant contends, however, that the trial court nevertheless should have barred the state from using Coleman’s probable cause hearing testimony because, according to the defendant, that testimony was inherently unreliable. As the court in Crawford noted, however, although the “ultimate goal [of the confrontation clause] is to ensure reliability of evidence ... it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee.” Crawford v. Washington, supra, 541 U.S. 61 . In other words, the confrontation clause “commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. The [cjlause thus reflects a judgment, not only about the desirability of reliable evidence (a point on which there could be little dissent), but about how reliability can best be determined.” Id. With respect to testimonial evidence, therefore, Crawford makes clear that the opportunity for cross-examination satisfies the requirements of the confrontation clause. To the extent that Coleman’s probable cause hearing testimony was not worthy of belief, as the defendant claims, the defendant had ample opportunity to challenge Coleman’s credibility at that hearing.

Indeed, even if more were needed, for purposes of the confrontation clause, to establish the reliability, and, thus, the admissibility, of Coleman’s testimony, that standard clearly has been satisfied. The record indicates that Coleman gave his testimony under oath and that he was subject to penalty for perjury. Moreover, his testimony was given before a judicial tribunal that kept an accurate record of the proceedings. The defendant was present at the hearing at which Coleman gave his testimony and was represented by the same counsel who later represented him at trial. See, e.g., State v. Outlaw, 216 Conn. 492, 505 , 582 A.2d 751 (1990) *716 (identifying pre-Crawford, factors for determination of admissibility of prior testimony). Most importantly, however, as we have explained, “defense counsel’s cross-examination comported with the principal purpose of cross-examination: to challenge whether the declarant was sincerely telling what he believed to be the truth, whether the declarant accurately perceived and remembered the matter he related, and whether the declarant’s intended meaning is adequately conveyed by the language he employed. [Ohio v. Roberts, supra, 448 U.S. 71 ] . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Outlaw, supra, 506 . The confrontation clause requires no more.

V

The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly permitted the state to adduce certain incriminatory statements that he allegedly had made while he was a resident at Elan in violation of his right to due process under the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution 84 and article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. 85 Specifically, the defendant maintains that the state’s use of his statements violated his right to due process because “they were extracted while [he] was subjected to an atmosphere of physical and psychological torture and intimidation” at Elan. The defendant concedes that he did not raise this claim in the trial court, and he therefore seeks to prevail under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40 , 567 A.2d 823 (1989). 86 The state contends that the defendant’s federal *717 constitutional claim fails as a matter of law because the defendant cannot establish a fundamental element of that claim, namely, that state officials, rather than private actors, were responsible for eliciting the allegedly coerced statements. With respect to the defendant’s state constitutional claim, the state contends that the record is inadequate for our review of that claim. We conclude that the defendant cannot establish that the statements at issue were obtained in violation of his right to due process.

The following facts are relevant to our resolution of the defendant’s claims. As we explained previously, from 1978 to 1980, the defendant attended the Elan School, a residential school for troubled adolescents located in Poland Springs, Maine. The undisputed evidence revealed that the atmosphere at Elan was extremely harsh and oppressive. Residents at Elan were subjected to a behavioral modification program that was predicated on ridicule and fear. For example, residents of Elan regularly were required to attend “general meetings,” the purpose of which was to confront and humiliate residents who, in the opinion of the staff, needed to be disciplined. At those meetings, residents deemed by Elan staff to be in need of discipline were subjected to physical and emotional hazing, and abuse from other residents and staff. 87 See footnote 12 of this opinion.

*718 While attending Elan, the defendant made several statements to residents there in which he implicated himself in the victim’s murder. The defendant made one such statement to Elizabeth Arnold, who testified that the defendant had told her that his brother had had sex with the victim on the night of the murder. The defendant also told Arnold that he was very drunk that night, that he had experienced some sort of blackout and that he did not know if he or his brother had killed the victim. John Higgins, another former Elan resident, testified that he and the defendant were alone one evening on the porch of their dormitory when the defendant told Higgins that he had been involved in a murder. Higgins further testified that the defendant also had stated that he had taken a golf club from the garage of his home and that he remembered running through the woods with the golf club in hand. Finally, Higgins recalled that the defendant continued to speak about the murder, stating, initially, that “he didn’t know whether he did it,” followed by “he may have done it,” and “he must have done it,” and concluding with, “I did it.”

The defendant also made incriminating statements to Gregory Coleman, a resident of Elan who had been assigned to “guard” the defendant after the defendant had returned to Elan following his failed escape attempt. According to Coleman, the defendant volunteered that, “I am going to get away with murder because I am a Kennedy . . . .” The defendant further stated that he had made romantic advances toward the victim, that she had spumed these advances and that he had beaten her to death with a golf club.

Another acquaintance of the defendant, Dorothy Rogers, testified that she was speaking with the defendant at an Elan social function when the defendant told her that he had been drinking on the night of the victim’s death and that he could not remember what he had *719 done. According to Rogers, the defendant further explained that his family had sent him to Elan because they were afraid that he had committed the murder. The defendant also had two conversations with Alice Dunn, another Elan resident, about the victim’s murder. One such conversation occurred at Elan while the defendant was cleaning the kitchen floor, and a second conversation occurred when Dunn and the defendant were together at a restaurant. In those conversations, the defendant told Dunn that he had been drinking on the night of the victim’s murder, that he did not know if he had killed the victim and that either he or his brother could have committed the murder.

The defendant contends that these statements were the product of the coercive environment at Elan and, therefore, that the statements were introduced into evidence in violation of the defendant’s right to due process. For the reasons that follow, we reject the defendant’s claim. 88

It is well settled that “any use in a criminal trial of an involuntary confession is a denial of due process of law. ... In order to be voluntary a confession must *720 be the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by the maker. ... If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of the confession offends due process. . . . The determination of whether a confession is voluntary must be based on a consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding it . . . including both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Reynolds, supra, 264 Conn. 54 .

“Under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, [however] in order for a confession to be deemed involuntary and thus inadmissible at trial, [t]here must be police conduct, or official coercion, causally related to the confession . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. Therefore, “[t]he most outrageous behavior by a private party seeking to secure evidence against a defendant does not make that evidence inadmissible under the Due Process Clause . . . [because] suppressing [such] statements would serve absolutely no purpose in enforcing constitutional guarantees. The purpose of excluding evidence seized in violation of the [federal] [constitution is to substantially deter future violations . . . .” (Citations omitted.) Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 166 , 107 S. Ct. 515 , 93 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1986). In the present case, the defendant does not claim that his inculpatory statements were procured, either directly or indirectly, by any state official or any person acting on behalf of the state. Accordingly, the defendant’s federal constitutional claim fails as a matter of law.

With respect to the defendant’s claim under the due process clause of the state constitution, it is true that, “in some instances . . . the protections afforded to the citizens of this state by our constitution go beyond those provided by the federal constitution . . . .” (Cita *721 tion omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Medina, 228 Conn. 281, 295-96 , 636 A.2d 351 (1994). Indeed, “this court has [o]n several occasions . . . left open the possibility that our state constitution might render a defendant’s involuntary statements inadmissible even if they were motivated by factors other than police coercion . . . .” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 295 . We need not decide whether the state constitution bars the use of involuntary statements that are not the product of police coercion, however, because, even if we assume, arguendo, that the state constitution does prohibit the use of such statements, the record is inadequate for our review of the defendant’s state constitutional claim.

“In order to be voluntary a confession must be the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by the maker. . . . If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of the confession offends due process. . . . The determination of whether a confession is voluntary must be based on a consideration of the totality of circumstances surrounding it . . . including both the characteristics of the accused and the details of the interrogation. . . . Factors that may be taken into account, upon a proper factual showing, include: the youth of the accused; his lack of education; his intelligence; the lack of any advice as to his constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated and prolonged nature of the questioning; and the use of physical punishment, such as the deprivation of food and sleep. . . .

“The trial court’s findings as to the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s interrogation and confession are findings of fact . . . which will not be overturned unless they are clearly erroneous.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Correa, 241 Conn. 322, 328-29 , 696 A.2d 944 (1997).

*722 In view of the fact that the defendant failed to raise a challenge in the trial court to the admissibility, on state constitutional grounds, of the statements that he made while a resident at Elan, the trial court never made any inquiry as to the voluntariness of those statements. Because that inquiry necessarily is fact-bound, the absence of a factual predicate is fatal to the defendant’s claim on appeal. In other words, “[w]e do not know . . . whether the trial court, after conducting a full evidentiary hearing and applying the state constitutional standard now urged by the defendant, would have found the defendant’s statements to have been involuntary. . . . [Sjince such a determination is a question of fact, even if we were to agree with the defendant [on his interpretation of the Connecticut constitution], we would have to remand the case to the trial court for that factual determination, rather than to grant the defendant a new trial. Since, under the test in Golding , we must determine whether the defendant can prevail on his claim, a remand to the trial court would be inappropriate. The first prong of Golding was designed to avoid remands for the purpose of supplementing the record.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Medina, supra, 228 Conn. 300 -301.

It is true, as the defendant observes, that, although we defer to the trial court’s findings on the subsidiary facts, our scope of review is plenary with respect to the ultimate question of voluntariness. See, e.g., State v. Fields, 265 Conn. 184, 197 , 827 A.2d 690 (2003); State v. Pinder, 250 Conn. 385, 420-21 , 736 A.2d 857 (1999). The defendant contends that, in light of the plenary nature of our review, we may decide his state constitutional claim despite the absence of any factual findings by the trial court. We disagree with the defendant’s contention. Because the claim was not raised in the trial court, we do not know the precise circumstances *723 under which the defendant’s statements were made, or the defendant’s state of mind when he made them. We therefore are unable to determine the extent to which the atmosphere at Elan may have affected the voluntariness of those statements, if at all. Indeed, to the extent that the defendant’s statements were the subject of testimony at trial, there was nothing inherently coercive about the particular circumstances surrounding the statements to indicate that they had not been given freely. In fact, in the case of each such statement, the defendant appears to have been confiding, voluntarily, in a fellow Elan resident. On appeal, we cannot assume that the atmosphere at Elan was so coercive that any incriminating statement by the defendant necessarily was the product of that coercive environment. The defendant’s state constitutional claim, therefore, fails under the first prong of Golding .

VI

The defendant further alleges three evidentiary improprieties which, according to the defendant, entitle him to a new trial. Specifically, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) permitted the state to introduce into evidence a prior inconsistent statement of Mildred lx even though that statement contained inadmissible hearsay; (2) permitted the state to impeach a witness with three newspaper articles that contained sensational allegations about the defendant and the Kennedy family; and (3) barred the defendant from impeaching Kenneth Littleton with evidence of his 1977 felony convictions. We reject each of the defendant’s claims.

We begin by setting forth the standard that governs our review of the trial court’s evidentiary rulings. “It is axiomatic that [t]he trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of evidence is entitled to great deference. ... In this regard, the trial court is vested with wide discretion *724 in determining the admissibility of evidence .... Accordingly, [t]he trial court’s ruling on evidentiary matters will be overturned only upon a showing of a clear abuse of the court’s discretion.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Perkins, 271 Conn. 218, 252 , 856 A.2d 917 (2004). Furthermore, “[i]n determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion, every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the trial court’s ruling, and we will upset that ruling only for a manifest abuse of discretion.” Id.

Finally, “[i]t is a fundamental rule of appellate review of evidentiary rulings that if [the] error is not of constitutional dimensions, an appellant has the burden of establishing that there has been an erroneous ruling which was probably harmful to him. . . . Two lines of cases have developed setting forth the standard for reversing nonconstitutional, evidentiary improprieties. Under one line of cases, the defendant must establish, in order to obtain a reversal of his conviction, that it is more probable than not that the result of the trial would have been different if the error had not been committed. E.g., State v. Cavell, 235 Conn. 711, 721-22 , 670 A.2d 261 (1996); State v. Buster, 224 Conn. 546, 561 , 620 A.2d 110 (1993). According to a second line of cases, the defendant must show that the prejudice resulting from the impropriety was so substantial as to undermine confidence in the fairness of the verdict. See, e.g., State v. Askew, 245 Conn. 351, 371-72 , 716 A.2d 36 (1998). Under either formulation, [w]hether [the improper admission of a witness’ testimony] is harmless in a particular case depends [on] a number of factors, such as the importance of the witness’ testimony in the prosecution’s case, whether the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-examination otherwise permitted, *725 and, of course, the overall strength of the prosecution’s case. . . . Most importantly, we must examine the impact of the [improperly admitted] evidence on the trier of fact and the result of the trial. ... If the evidence may have had a tendency to influence the [verdict] of the jury, it cannot be considered harmless.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gonzalez, 272 Conn. 515, 527-28 , 864 A.2d 847 (2005).

A

We first address the defendant’s contention that the trial court improperly admitted the prior inconsistent statement of Mildred lx because it contained hearsay not admissible under any established hearsay exception. We are not persuaded by the defendant’s claim.

At trial, the state presented the testimony of Mildred lx, a resident of the Belle Haven neighborhood at the time of the victim’s murder. Mildred lx testified that she had been close to the defendant’s deceased mother, and that she also was a good friend of the defendant’s father, Rushton Skakel, Sr. She also testified that, after the death of the defendant’s mother, she occasionally helped the defendant’s father with problems or other matters relating to his children. On direct examination, the state asked Mildred lx whether she recalled a conversation in which the defendant’s father had confided in her that the defendant had admitted that he may have killed the victim. Mildred lx responded that she did not. Thereafter, the state offered into evidence the prior grand jury testimony of Mildred lx in accordance with the rule that we adopted in State v. Whelan, 200 Conn. 743 , 513 A.2d 86 , cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994 , 107 S. Ct. 597 , 93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986), which allows the “substantive use of prior written inconsistent statements, signed by the declarant, who has personal knowledge of the facts stated, when the declarant testi *726 fies at trial and is subject to cross-examination.” Id., 753. The proffered testimony provided in relevant part: “I can’t remember who told me that, but it was—oh, it was . . . [the defendant’s father]. He said . . . [the defendant] had come up to him and he said, you know, I had a lot ... to drink that night and I would like to see ... if I could have had so much to drink that I would have forgotten something, and I could have murdered [the victim], and I would like to make sure at that night knowing something like that happened. So he asked to go under Sodium Pentothal 89 or whatever it was.”

Defense counsel objected to the state’s use of the prior grand jury testimony of Mildred lx on the ground that the testimony contained hearsay that did not fall within any established hearsay exception. The trial court overruled the objection, concluding that, although the statement contained three levels of hearsay, each level was independently admissible under a firmly rooted hearsay exception. Specifically, the court determined that the first level of hearsay, namely, the grand jury testimony of Mildred lx, was admissible under the hearsay exception for prior inconsistent statements carved out by this court in Whelan . See Conn. Code Evid. § 8-5 (1). With respect to the second level of hearsay, namely, the statement of the defendant’s father to Mildred lx, the court determined that that statement was admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. See id., § 8-9. Finally, the court concluded that the third level of hearsay, namely, the defendant’s alleged statement to his father, was admissible as an admission by a party opponent. See id., § 8-3 (1).

On appeal, the defendant does not dispute the trial court’s determination that the first and third levels of *727 hearsay contained in the statement of Mildred lx were admissible under the hearsay exceptions identified by the trial court. Rather, he challenges the trial court’s conclusion that his father’s statement to Mildred lx was admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule. Specifically, the defendant contends that the trial court placed unwarranted reliance on the nature of his father’s friendship with Mildred lx in assessing the trustworthiness and reliability of the statement. In support of this contention, the defendant maintains that communications between close friends are not so inherently reliable as to overcome the general prohibition against the admission of hearsay testimony. The defendant further asserts that the trial court improperly concluded that it was unlikely that a father would relay a matter of such a sensitive nature about his son to a close confidant unless it were true. We disagree with the defendant.

As we previously have noted, out-of-court statements offered to establish the truth of the matter asserted are hearsay. Such statements generally are inadmissible unless they fall within an exception to the hearsay rule. “A hearsay statement that does not fall within one of the traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule nevertheless may be admissible under the residual exception to the hearsay rule provided that the proponent’s use of the statement is reasonably necessary and the statement itself is supported by equivalent guarantees of trustworthiness and reliability that are essential to other evidence admitted under traditional exceptions to the hearsay rule. Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9; accord State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 809 , 709 A.2d 522 (1998).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Aaron L., 272 Conn. 798, 812 , 865 A.2d 1135 (2005).

The requirement of reasonable necessity “is met when, unless the hearsay statement is admitted, the facts it contains may be lost, either because the declar *728 ant is dead or otherwise unavailable, or because the assertion is of such a nature that evidence of the same value cannot be obtained from the same or other sources.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hines, supra, 243 Conn. 809 ; accord Conn. Code Evid. § 8-9, commentary. At trial, the declarant, namely, the defendant’s father, testified that he did not recall confiding in Mildred lx that the defendant had admitted to him that he may have been involved in the victim’s murder. Upon examining the transcript of her grand jury testimony, Mildred lx confirmed that she had had a conversation with the defendant’s father in which he stated that the defendant wanted to take a Sodium Pentothal test, but she denied that the defendant’s father had said anything about the defendant’s possible involvement in the victim’s murder. In light of the fact that the only two parties to the conversation, Mildred lx and the defendant’s father, did not recall the statement that the defendant allegedly had made to his father, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that admission of the statement was reasonably necessary.

We next address the trustworthiness and reliability of the statement. We previously have identified several factors that bear upon the trustworthiness and reliability of an out-of-court statement, including: (1) whether “the circumstances are such that a sincere and accurate statement would naturally be uttered, and no plan of falsification [could] be formed”; (internal quotation marks omitted) State v. Hines, supra, 243 Conn. 810 ; (2) the closeness of the relationship between the declarant and recipient; State v. Rivera, 268 Conn. 351, 369 , 844 A.2d 191 (2004); (3) whether the statement was made spontaneously and in confidence or obtained in response to government questioning conducted in anticipation of litigation; id., 370 ; (4) the temporal proximity between the alleged statement and the events to which *729 the statement refers; id., 370-71 ; and (5) whether the declarant testifies at trial and is subject to cross-examination. State v. Sharpe, 195 Conn. 651, 665 , 491 A.2d 345 (1985). Applying these factors to the present case, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the challenged statement bore the requisite indicia of trustworthiness and reliability for admission under the residual exception to the hearsay rale.

First, Mildred lx and the defendant’s father had a personal relationship, and, from time to time, they spoke about issues involving the Skakel children. Moreover, the defendant’s father made the challenged statement to Mildred lx in confidence and on his own initiative. In such circumstances, it is most doubtful that he would have repeated the defendant’s statement to Mildred lx unless the defendant, in fact, had made such a statement to him. Moreover, as a general matter, it is highly unlikely that a father would implicate his child falsely in a serious crime, and there is nothing in the record to suggest that the defendant’s father had any reason or cause to do so in the present case. Furthermore, because the defendant’s father made the statement to Mildred lx in 1980 or 1981, his recall likely was more accurate at that time than when he testified at trial more than twenty years later. 90 Finally, Mildred lx and the defendant’s father testified and were subject to cross-examination concerning the challenged statement and its contents. In such circumstances, the statement bore sufficient indicia of reliability to warrant its admission into evidence. Because the trial court also reasonably concluded that the state had a legitimate need for the statement, we reject the defendant’s contention that the trial court abused its discretion in per *730 mitting the state to use the grand jury testimony of Mildred lx as substantive evidence.

B

The defendant next claims that the trial court improperly permitted the state to introduce into evidence, for impeachment purposes, three irrelevant and prejudicial newspaper articles, 91 and that that impropriety entitles him to a new trial. We also reject this claim.

At trial, Geranne Ridge testified that, in 1997, the defendant attended a gathering at her home. At that gathering, Ridge overheard the defendant state, “[A]sk me why I killed my neighbor.” According to Ridge, the defendant had made that comment “in jest . . . .” Ridge claimed that she could not recall the defendant making any other statements about his alleged involvement in the victim’s murder. The state thereafter introduced into evidence, in accordance with State v. Whelan, supra, 200 Conn. 753 , a tape-recorded telephone conversation between Ridge and a friend, Matthew Attanian, that had taken place in February, 2002. In the conversation, Ridge told Attanian in relevant part: “[T]his is the real story. Um, [an unintelligible] name is used from now on, okay? . . . Um, John Doe was, was, um, watching this particular girl at her bedroom window, changing. And he was up in a tree, masturbating, [be] cause he liked her. She went and had sex with his brother Tommy that same night, while he was outside smoking pot and doing LSD and acid and really big-time drugs, mind, you know, altering drugs. After he found out that, that his, that John Doe’s brother had sex with this girl, he got so violent and he was so *731 screwed up, he did that to her.” Attanian replied, “Wow. And he told you he did that?” Ridge responded, “Yes.” Ridge also told Attanian that the defendant had told her and the guests at her home that, “I did hit her with a golf club . . . .”

On cross-examination, Ridge maintained that the defendant had not, in fact, made any admissions to her about the victim’s murder, and that her only contact with the defendant consisted of her overhearing his “off the cuff’ comment, “[A]sk me why I killed my neighbor.” Ridge further maintained that it was her houseguest, Marisa Verrochi, and not she, who had invited the defendant to her home, and that she had never even been introduced to the defendant. Ridge also explained that she had lied to Attanian about the defendant’s admissions in order to satisfy Attanian’s curiosity about the murder and to appear more knowledgeable about that crime than she actually was. In addition, Ridge testified that the information that she had relayed to Attanian “came from magazines, newspapers and from Marisa Verrochi.”

On redirect examination, the state’s attorney asked Ridge whether three newspaper articles that her attorney had brought to court that day were the source of the information that she had conveyed to Attanian. She responded that they were “[m]ost of the source, yes . . . .” The state’s attorney then asked Ridge to examine the three publications and to identify any reference in the articles concerning the details of the statement attributed to the defendant by Ridge in her tape-recorded telephone conversation with Attanian. Defense counsel objected to this inquiry on the ground that the articles were not in evidence, and the court sustained the objection. The state’s attorney thereafter questioned Ridge about each specific fact that she had attributed to the defendant in her telephone conversation with Attanian, inquiring as to whether the fact *732 was mentioned in the three newspaper articles. Ridge responded that each such fact was contained in one or more of the articles. 92 At that point, the state sought to introduce the three newspaper articles into evidence, and defense counsel objected, claiming that the articles were irrelevant and prejudicial. The trial court overruled defense counsel’s objection. The court instructed the jury, however, that the articles were not being admitted for the truth of the information contained therein but, rather, for the limited purpose of impeaching Ridge’s testimony that they had been the source of the details that she had related to Attanian. The state’s attorney then asked Ridge to examine the articles and to point out those portions of the articles that contained the information that she had provided to Attanian. Ridge responded that she had not thoroughly reviewed the articles, but that they did not contain some of the details that she had related to Attanian in their telephone conversation. 93 On recross-examination, Ridge testified that *733 the three articles were not the only sources of the information that she had conveyed to Attanian. At the conclusion of the trial, the court again instructed the jury regarding the limited purpose for which the articles had been introduced into evidence.

The defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the newspaper articles into evidence because they were irrelevant and prejudicial. Specifically, the defendant maintains that the articles contain sensational stories of sex, alcohol and drugs involving the defendant and the Kennedy family, generally “underscored the pervasive theme of the state’s case that the defendant believed [that] he was above the law because he was a Kennedy,” and otherwise suggested that the defendant, like other members of his family, was a liar who had much to hide. 94

*734 It is well established that “[Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical tendency to aid the trier in the determination of an issue. . . . One fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable. . . . Evidence is irrelevant or too remote if there is such a want of open and visible connection between the *735 evidentiary and principal facts that, all things considered, the former is not worthy or safe to be admitted in the proof of the latter. . . . Evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it is not conclusive. All that is required is that the evidence tend to support a relevant fact even to a slight degree, so long as it is not [unfairly] prejudicial or merely cumulative.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Colon, 272 Conn. 106, 200-201 , 864 A.2d 666 (2004), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 848 , 126 S. Ct. 102 , 163 L. Ed. 2d 116 (2005); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 4-1.

We agree with the trial court that the newspaper articles were relevant to the state’s contention that Ridge did not, in fact, obtain the information that she had conveyed to Attanian from the newspaper articles but, rather, from the defendant himself, as she had represented to Attanian. 95 In light of Ridge’s testimony that the newspapers, and not the defendant, were the source of that information, the fact that most of the information was not contained in the articles provided a proper avenue of impeachment for the state.

With respect to the prejudicial effect of evidence admitted at trial, we have stated that, “[although relevant, evidence may be excluded by the trial court if the court determines that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighs its probative value. . . . [T]he trial *736 court’s discretionary determination that the probative value of evidence is . . . outweighed by its prejudicial effect will not be disturbed on appeal unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. . . . [B]ecause of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process . . . every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling. ... Of course, [a] 11 adverse evidence is damaging to one’s case, but it is inadmissible only if it creates undue prejudice so that it threatens an injustice were it to be admitted. . . . [Accordingly] [t]he test for determining whether evidence is unduly prejudicial is not whether it is damaging to the [party against whom the evidence is offered] but whether it will improperly arouse the emotions of the jur[ors].” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Sandoval, 263 Conn. 524, 544 , 821 A.2d 247 (2003); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 4-3.

Whether the trial court reasonably concluded that the probative value of the articles was not outweighed by their potential prejudicial effect presents a close question. Our review of the articles reveals that they are comprised primarily of sensationalized reports of allegedly scandalous conduct by members of the Kennedy family. Although the articles also mention the defendant’s abuse of drugs and alcohol, ample evidence of that abuse was admitted into evidence at trial. Moreover, to the extent that the articles refer to the present case and to the defendant’s purported involvement in the victim’s murder, those references are relatively brief and, with minor exceptions, involve facts that already were properly before the jury. See footnote 94 of this opinion. Nevertheless, because of the sensational nature and tone of the articles, their introduction into evidence created some risk of prejudice to the defendant. That risk, however, undoubtedly was minimized by virtue of the trial court’s limiting instructions. 96 We *737 need not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in permitting the state to introduce the articles into evidence, however, because the defendant cannot establish that any prejudice that may have flowed from their admission into evidence was so substantial as to warrant a new trial. In other words, under either formulation of the test that this court applies in determining whether an evidentiary error warrants a new trial; compare State v. Cavell, supra, 235 Conn. 721 -22 (result of trial likely would have been different but for evidentiary impropriety), with State v. Askew, supra, 245 Conn. 371 -72 (prejudice resulting from erroneous evidentiary ruling is so substantial as to undermine confidence in fairness of verdict); the defendant cannot establish harm because the jury already was aware of most of the facts contained in the articles; see State v. Gonzalez, supra, 272 Conn. 528 -29 (“[i]t is well recognized that any error in the admission of evidence does not require reversal of the resulting judgment if the improperly admitted evidence is merely cumulative of other validly admitted testimony” [internal quotation marks omitted]); and because the trial court repeatedly instructed the jury regarding the limited admissibility of the articles. See State v. McIntyre, 242 Conn. 318, 330 , 699 A.2d 911 (1997) (“[t]he jury is presumed to *738 follow the court’s instructions unless there is a fair indication to the contrary” [internal quotation marks omitted]). Accordingly, we reject the defendant’s claim.

C

The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly prohibited him from impeaching Kenneth Littleton with evidence of Littleton’s three prior convictions for burglary in 1977. We disagree.

“Generally, evidence that a witness has been convicted of a crime is admissible to impeach his credibility if the crime was punishable by imprisonment for more than one year. General Statutes § 52-145 (b); Conn. Code Evid. § 6-7 (a). In determining whether to admit evidence of a conviction, the court shall consider: (1) the extent of the prejudice likely to arise; (2) the significance of the particular crime in indicating untruthfulness; and (3) the remoteness in time of the conviction. Conn. Code Evid. § 6-7 (a); see State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 522 , 447 A.2d 396 (1982) (recognizing same three part test at common law prior to adoption of Connecticut Code of Evidence). Moreover, [i]n evaluating the separate ingredients to be weighed in the balancing process, there is no way to quantify them in mathematical terms. . . . Therefore, [t]he trial court has wide discretion in this balancing determination and every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the correctness of the court’s ruling .... Reversal is required only whe[n] an abuse of discretion is manifest or whe[n] injustice appears to have been done.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Label Systems Corp. v. Aghamohammadi, 270 Conn. 291, 307 , 852 A.2d 703 (2004). With respect to the remoteness prong of the balancing test, we have endorsed a general guideline of ten years from conviction or release from confinement for that conviction, whichever is later, as an appropriate limitation on the *739 use of a witness’ prior conviction. See, e.g., id., 313 ; State v. Dorans, 261 Conn. 730, 755-56 , 806 A.2d 1033 (2002). “[T]he ten year benchmark . . . [however] is not an absolute bar to the use of a conviction that is more than ten years old, but, rather, serves merely as a guide to assist the trial judge in evaluating the conviction’s remoteness.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Label Systems Corp. v. Aghamohammadi, supra, 313 . We have recognized, moreover, that “convictions having some special significance upon the issue of veracity surmount the standard bar of ten years and qualify for the balancing of probative value against prejudice.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dorans, supra, 755-56 .

Although Littleton’s burglary convictions are probative of a lack of honesty; see State v. Cooper, 227 Conn. 417, 436 , 630 A.2d 1043 (1993) (“[breaking and entering with criminal intent [is] a crime . . . associated with larceny and, therefore, implying dishonesty in the general sense directly affecting the credibility of [a] witness”); see also State v. Askew, supra, 245 Conn. 363 -64 (noting that crimes involving larcenous intent are probative of lack of honesty); we nevertheless conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding them. The twenty-five year time span between Little-ton’s convictions and his trial testimony 97 greatly surpasses the ten year benchmark. Even though the crimes reflect a lack of honesty, their probative value was minimal, at best, in view of the long span of time *740 between the convictions and Littleton’s testimony. See, e.g., State v. Dorans, supra, 261 Conn. 756 (trial court properly excluded conviction that involved larcenous intent and that was more than twenty years old). Consequently, the trial court acted within its discretion in concluding that the convictions were too remote to have any meaningful bearing on Littleton’s veracity as a witness.

The defendant claims, nevertheless, that the trial court improperly excluded the proffered impeachment evidence because that evidence was not unduly prejudicial to the state and because of Littleton’s importance to the defendant’s theory of the case. In support of this claim, the defendant relies primarily on State v. Askew, supra, 245 Conn. 351 . In Askew , the defendant, Willie Askew, was convicted of robbery in the first degree. Id., 352 . At trial, Askew testified on his own behalf, and the state was permitted to impeach him with evidence of his prior robbery conviction. See id., 359 . The robbery victim, who was the key state’s witness; see id., 369 ; also had a prior felony larceny conviction, which, at the time of the trial, was ten years and seven months old. Id., 356 . The trial court barred Askew from using the victim’s prior conviction for impeachment purposes because the conviction was more than ten years old. See id., 357 . On appeal, Askew claimed that the trial court had abused its discretion in prohibiting him from impeaching the victim with his prior conviction, and we agreed. Id., 371 . We observed that, “as a general matter, it is unlikely that the use of a criminal conviction to impeach a state’s witness will give rise to any undue prejudice”; 98 id., 363 ; that the crime underlying the vic *741 tint’s conviction was probative of a lack of honesty; id.; and that the victim’s conviction, “while exceeding our ten year benchmark for presumptive admissibility, [was] not so remote as to impair, to any meaningful degree, its probative value.” 99 Id., 364 . Additionally, we observed that the state’s case rested almost exclusively on the testimony of the victim. See id., 369 . Because the outcome of the trial in that case “turned on the jury’s assessment of the rel

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.