*********************************************** 

The “officially released” date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was 

released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions 

and petitions for certification is the “officially released” 

date appearing in the opinion. 

All opinions are subject to modification and technical 

correction prior to official publication in the Connecticut 

Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of 

discrepancies between the advance release version of an 

opinion and the latest version appearing in the Connecticut 

Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports 

or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is to 

be considered authoritative. 

The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the 

opinion as it appears in the Connecticut Law Journal and 

bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the 

Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not 

be reproduced and distributed without the express written 

permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. 

*********************************************** 
STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. MATTHEW PUGH

(AC 39688)

Lavine, Keller and Pellegrino, Js.

Syllabus

Convicted, after a jury trial, of the crimes of murder and burglary in the

first degree, the defendant appealed. The defendant’s conviction

stemmed from his alleged murder of his former girlfriend in her home.

At trial, the trial court admitted testimony from M, pursuant to the

applicable rule of evidence (§ 8-3 [2]), concerning statements made by

the victim during a telephone conversation on the day of the murder

relating to the unexpected presence of the defendant, her former boyfriend, at her door. W, a Milford police detective, also testified, without

objection, that, to verify the defendant’s statements regarding his whereabouts on the day of the murder, he and other police investigators spoke

with individuals from various car dealerships that the defendant claimed

to have visited, all of whom stated that they had no recollection of the

defendant visiting on that day. Held:

1. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting, pursuant to

the spontaneous utterance exception to the rule against hearsay, M’s

testimony regarding the statements that he overheard the victim make

while they were on the telephone on the day of the murder; the record

supported that court’s finding that the victim’s statements were made

in such close connection to a startling occurrence and under such circumstances as to negate the opportunity for deliberation and fabrication,

as the subject statements were spontaneous and unreflective, and made

in response to the startling occurrence of the defendant’s unexpected

and unwanted appearance at the victim’s door, the victim made the

statements as the subject events unfolded, which negated the opportunity for deliberation or fabrication, M testified that the victim was

annoyed and surprised when she made the statements, and there was

testimony that the victim feared the defendant and that he was the only

person the victim referred to as her ‘‘ex-boyfriend.’’

2. The defendant could not prevail on his unpreserved claim that the trial

court violated his constitutional right to confrontation by admitting W’s

testimony regarding the defendant’s alleged whereabouts on the day

of the murder, which he claimed constituted inadmissible testimonial

hearsay; even if the admission of the challenged testimony was improper,

the state met its burden of proving that any error was harmless beyond

a reasonable doubt, as the testimony was cumulative of unchallenged

testimony that had been presented to the jury and was consistent with

the state’s theory of the case, all of which provided a firm basis for the

jury to doubt the defendant’s version of events on the day of the victim’s

murder, and the state presented a strong case against the defendant by

demonstrating that he had devised a plan to kill the victim, that he was

in the area of or inside her home at approximately the time of her death,

and that a distinct type of tape, to which he had access, was used in

connection with her murder.

3. This court found unavailing the defendant’s claim that the trial court

committed plain error by failing to dismiss, sua sponte, the charge of

burglary in the first degree, which he alleged had been brought beyond

the applicable statute of limitations: the defendant was not entitled to

reversal of his burglary conviction under the plain error doctrine, as he

waived a statute of limitations affirmative defense by failing to raise it

at trial and, therefore, was barred from raising such a defense on appeal;

furthermore, the defendant did not provide this court with any controlling authority indicating that it was the responsibility of the trial court,

sua sponte, to dismiss a criminal charge that had been brought beyond

the applicable statute of limitations.

Argued April 10—officially released September 19, 2017

Procedural History

Substitute information charging the defendant with
the crimes of murder and burglary in the first degree,

brought to the Superior Court in the judicial district of

Ansonia-Milford and tried to the jury before Markle, J.;

verdict and judgment of guilty, from which the defendant appealed. Affirmed.

Damian Gunningsmith, with whom, on the brief,

was John L. Cordani, Jr., for the appellant (defendant).

Matthew A. Weiner, assistant state’s attorney, with

whom, on the brief, was Kevin D. Lawlor, state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
Opinion

LAVINE, J. The principal issue in this appeal is

whether the trial court improperly admitted into evidence, under the spontaneous utterance exception to

the rule against hearsay, statements made by the victim

relating to the unexpected presence of her former boyfriend, the defendant Matthew Pugh, whom she feared.

The defendant appeals from his conviction, following

a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes

§ 53a-54a (a) and burglary in the first degree in violation

of General Statutes § 53a-101 (a) (2). On appeal, the

defendant claims that the trial court: (1) abused its

discretion by admitting into evidence statements made

by the victim pursuant to the spontaneous utterance

exception to the rule against hearsay; (2) erroneously

admitted into evidence testimonial hearsay in violation

of his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth

amendment to the federal constitution by permitting

a police investigator to testify as to certain witness

statements regarding the defendant’s claimed whereabouts on the day of the murder; and (3) committed

plain error when it did not dismiss, sua sponte, the

burglary in the first degree charge, which had been

brought beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

By way of long form information, the state charged

the defendant with murder and burglary in the first

degree. These charges stemmed from the death of Alexandra Duscay, the victim, whose body was found by

her mother, Linda Duscay, in their Milford home at

approximately 4:30 p.m. on May 19, 2006. An autopsy

revealed that the victim died as a result of blunt force

trauma and stab wounds to her head. Following the

jury’s verdict of guilty on both counts, the trial court

sentenced the defendant to a term of imprisonment of

sixty years on the murder conviction and a concurrent

sentence of twenty years on the burglary conviction,

for a total effective sentence of sixty years to serve.

This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth

as necessary.

I

We begin with the defendant’s first claim challenging

the trial court’s admission of the victim’s statements

under the spontaneous utterance exception to the rule

against hearsay. Specifically, the defendant challenges

the testimony of Jermaine Morton, who testified that

the victim stated, during a telephone call on May 19,

2006, that her ‘‘ex-boyfriend’’ was at the door and ‘‘what

are you doing here? You were supposed to call first.’’

The defendant argues that the ‘‘nonviolent’’ arrival of

a former boyfriend is not the type of startling event

that would shock and overwhelm the senses and that

statements made in relation to that event are not free

from the opportunity to deliberate or fabricate.1 We
disagree.

The following additional facts, which the jury reasonably could have found, and procedural history are relevant to the resolution of the defendant’s claim. The

victim met the defendant when she was a teenager.

The two became romantically involved, and the victim

considered the defendant her boyfriend. Although the

defendant was sentenced to prison in 1998, he and the

victim continued to communicate with one another.

During the defendant’s incarceration, however, the

victim began to distance herself from him, finding the

relationship stressful. She ultimately decided to end the

relationship just prior to the defendant’s release from

prison in 2004. Soon after the defendant was released

on August 6, 2004, the victim told her brother, Erik

Terranova, that she feared the defendant. Nicole Williamson, a close friend of the victim, also testified that

the victim even worried that the defendant might be

hiding in the bushes when she returned home at night.

According to family and friends, the defendant was

the only individual whom the victim referred to as her

‘‘ex-boyfriend.’’

At approximately 12:30 p.m. on May 19, 2006, the

victim, while at home in Milford, placed a call to Morton,

whom she had been dating for a few weeks. At trial,

the state called Morton to testify regarding the statements he overheard the victim make during this phone

call. In an offer of proof made outside of the presence

of the jury, Morton testified that, during their conversation, ‘‘she told me to hold on, and she said someone

was at her door. I could actually hear her in the background say what are you doing here? You were supposed to call first. She got back on the phone. She told

me not to—she would call me right back. She called

me back about ten to twenty—five to twenty minutes,

or whatever, and after that she didn’t say anything. She

just talked about—we had another regular conversation. She didn’t sound hurt or she didn’t sound anything

like that, so I didn’t take alarm of anything, so.’’2

(Emphasis added.) After reviewing the written statement that he gave to police on May 19, 2006, Morton

further testified that the victim informed him that her

‘‘ex-boyfriend’’ was the individual at the door.3 The

court asked Morton to describe the ‘‘nature’’ of the

victim’s statements, and Morton testified that the victim

was ‘‘annoyed’’ and ‘‘surprised that [the defendant]

was there.’’

Over the defendant’s objection, the court admitted

Morton’s testimony recounting the victim’s statements,

concluding that the statements: (1) followed the startling event of an unannounced appearance of an individual; (2) related to that appearance; (3) demonstrated

the victim’s direct observation of the individual’s

appearance; and (4) were reliable because they were

made under circumstances during which the declarant
did not have time to fabricate her observations.

Before we address the defendant’s claim, we set forth

the applicable legal principles. ‘‘An out-of-court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted

is hearsay and is generally inadmissible unless an exception to the general rule applies. . . . Among the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule is the spontaneous

utterance exception, which applies to an utterance or

declaration that: (1) follows some startling occurrence;

(2) refers to the occurrence; (3) is made by one having

the opportunity to observe the occurrence; and (4) is

made in such close connection to the occurrence and

under such circumstances as to negate the opportunity

for deliberation and fabrication by the declarant. . . .

[T]he ultimate question is whether the utterance was

spontaneous and unreflective and made under such

circumstances as to indicate absence of opportunity

for contrivance and misrepresentation. . . . Whether

an utterance is spontaneous and made under circumstances that would preclude contrivance and misrepresentation is a preliminary question of fact to be decided

by the trial judge. . . . The trial judge exercises broad

discretion in deciding this preliminary question, and

that decision will not be reversed on appeal absent an

unreasonable exercise of discretion.’’ (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wargo, 255 Conn. 113, 127–28, 763 A.2d

1 (2000); see also Conn. Code Evid. § 8-3 (2).

To be admissible as a spontaneous utterance, ‘‘[t]he

event or condition must be sufficiently startling so as

to produce nervous excitement in the declarant and

render [the declarant’s] utterances spontaneous and

unreflective.’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State

v. Kirby, 280 Conn. 361, 374, 908 A.2d 506 (2006); see

also Perry v. Haritos, 100 Conn. 476, 483–85, 124 A. 44

(1924) (statement deemed trustworthy because it ‘‘is

made under the immediate and uncontrolled domination of the senses’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]).

In reviewing the defendant’s claim, we bear in mind

that ‘‘whether a statement is truly spontaneous as to

fall within the spontaneous utterance exception [is]

. . . reviewed with the utmost deference to the trial

court’s determination.’’ State v. Saucier, 283 Conn. 207,

219, 926 A.2d 633 (2007).

It appears that the defendant is challenging both the

first and fourth elements of a spontaneous utterance,

namely, whether the victim’s statement ‘‘followed some

startling occurrence’’ and whether her statement was

‘‘made in such close connection to the occurrence and

under such circumstances as to negate the opportunity

for deliberation and fabrication by the declarant.’’ State

v. Wargo, supra, 255 Conn. 127. On the basis of our

review of the record, we conclude that the trial court

did not abuse its discretion by admitting Morton’s testimony regarding the statements that he overheard the
victim make while on the phone.

Connecticut courts have had numerous opportunities

to assess the types of ‘‘startling events’’ that can generate the kind of nervous excitement or uncontrolled

outbursts captured by the spontaneous utterance

exception to the rule against hearsay.4 At the outset,

we appreciate the fact that the unannounced presence

of an individual at one’s door, in and of itself, may not

appear to be among the usual set of circumstances

envisioned when evaluating whether a statement is, or

is not, admissible as a spontaneous utterance. Although

this court has previously suggested that certain events

lack the ‘‘trauma necessary to negate the opportunity

for deliberation and fabrication’’; (internal quotation

marks omitted) State v. McNair, 54 Conn. App. 807,

813, 738 A.2d 689, cert. denied, 251 Conn. 913, 739 A.2d

1249 (1999); ‘‘the application of the exception entails a

uniquely fact bound inquiry.’’ State v. Westberry, 68

Conn. App. 622, 628, 792 A.2d 154, cert. denied, 260

Conn. 923, 797 A.2d 519 (2002). Thus, whether a statement qualifies as a spontaneous utterance requires a

case-by-case assessment of the particular facts and circumstances surrounding the subject statement. See,

e.g., State v. Kirby, supra, 280 Conn. 375. In other words,

context is crucial.

With that in mind, we conclude that the record clearly

supports the trial court’s finding that the victim’s statements were ‘‘made in such close connection to [a startling] occurrence and under such circumstances as to

negate the opportunity for deliberation and fabrication

. . . .’’ State v. Wargo, supra, 255 Conn. 127. At the time

that the state proffered Morton’s testimony, the state

presented ample evidence from the victim’s family that

the victim feared the defendant. Her close friend, Williamson, testified that the victim was concerned that

the defendant might be hiding in the bushes when she

returned home. Morton also described the victim as

being ‘‘annoyed’’ and ‘‘surprised’’ when she made the

subject statements. Under the circumstances of the present case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion

by concluding that the defendant’s unexpected and

unwanted appearance at the victim’s doorstep startled her.5

Additionally, the court heard testimony that the

defendant was the only person the victim referred to

as her ‘‘ex-boyfriend,’’ and the victim made these statements as the defendant was at her door. Thus, the

record supports a finding that the victim made these

statements as events unfolded, negating the opportunity

to deliberate or fabricate. See State v. Silver, 126 Conn.

App. 522, 526, 535–36, 12 A.3d 1014 (declarant’s

recorded statement to 911 dispatcher made as he

observed erratic driver crash into center median and

flee), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 931, 17 A.3d 68 (2011);

State v. Torelli, 103 Conn. App. 646, 662, 931 A.2d 337
(2007) (declarant startled by erratic driver and his statements ‘‘were made in the course of an ongoing

urgent situation’’).

We conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in determining that the victim’s statements were

spontaneous, unreflective, and made in response to a

startling occurrence that overwhelmed her senses.6

II

The defendant next claims that the court violated his

right to confrontation under the sixth amendment to

the federal constitution when it admitted testimonial

hearsay into evidence.7 More specifically, he argues that

the testimony of a detective from the Milford Police

Department (department) was inadmissible testimonial

hearsay under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36,

124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). The state argues

that the record is inadequate to determine whether the

hearsay statements were testimonial in nature and that,

regardless, any error in admitting the challenged testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.8

Because we agree that the error, if any, was harmless,

we need not address the state’s argument that the

record is inadequate to review the defendant’s claim.

The following facts, which the jury reasonably could

have found, and procedural history are relevant to the

defendant’s claim. After his release from prison in 2004,

the defendant began a romantic relationship with Charise Trotman. The defendant lived with Trotman and her

teenaged daughter, Chamira Trotman-Adams, in Hamden on May 19, 2006.

During their inquiry into the circumstances of the

victim’s death, investigators from the department questioned the defendant about his whereabouts on May 19,

2006. The investigators first questioned the defendant

at approximately 5:30 p.m. that evening. In response to

their questions, the defendant said that he had been at

Chromalloy, his place of employment, all day and

denied visiting Milford that day. He later informed the

investigators that he left Chromalloy early to check on

Adams, who had been suspended from school, arrived

home just before 10 a.m., lifted weights until about 11

a.m., and then went car shopping around the greater

Hamden, New Haven, and Milford vicinities. Although

Adams was at home in Hamden when the defendant

claimed to have returned, she did not see or hear him.

The state called Steven Wydra, a detective in the

department, during its case-in-chief to testify regarding

the investigation of the victim’s murder. According to

Wydra, his team visited various car dealerships and

used car lots in the Hamden and New Haven areas,

noting that ‘‘[e]veryone we talked to at the car dealerships said that they had no recollection of someone

matching [the defendant’s] description [visiting on May

19, 2006].’’ The state did not call as witnesses the individ-
uals at the car dealerships. Wydra later confirmed the

substance of this testimony in response to questions

posed by the state regarding a follow-up interview with

the defendant that took place on May 26, 2006. Shortly

after Wydra testified regarding his discussions with the

individuals at the car dealerships, the following

exchange took place:

‘‘[The Prosecutor]: Did you also speak with [the

defendant] regarding the used car lots that he had been

visiting that afternoon?

‘‘[Wydra]: Yes. I had explained to him that we had

gone to these car lots and they said that they had not

seen him. So I asked him again—actually, I asked if he

would actually go with us to the car lots and show us

which car lots because there were like three or four of

them on the corners that he talked about.

‘‘[The Prosecutor]: So did he assist you in doing that?

Did he bring you out and say hey, this is where I was?

‘‘[Wydra]: No, he did not.’’ (Emphasis added.)

On appeal, the defendant claims that admitting

Wydra’s testimony that ‘‘[e]veryone we talked to at the

car dealerships said that they had no recollection of

someone matching [the defendant’s] description [visiting on May 19, 2006]’’ violated his right to confrontation. The defendant concedes that he did not object

to the introduction of the challenged testimony and,

therefore, seeks review under State v. Golding, 213

Conn. 233, 239–40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), as modified in

In re Yasiel R., 317 Conn. 773, 780–81, 120 A.3d 1188

(2015). ‘‘[A] defendant can prevail on a claim of constitutional error not preserved at trial only if all the following

conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review

the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental

right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation . . .

exists and . . . deprived the defendant of a fair trial;

and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state

has failed to demonstrate harmlessness beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of any one of these conditions, the defendant’s claim will fail. The appellate

tribunal is free, therefore, to respond to the defendant’s

claim by focusing on whichever condition is most relevant in the particular circumstances.’’ (Emphasis in

original; footnote omitted.) State v. Golding, supra, 213

Conn. 239–40.

Even if we assume, which we do not, that a violation

of the defendant’s right to confrontation exists on this

record based on the challenged portion of Wydra’s testimony, we conclude that the state has met its burden

of proving that any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ‘‘It is well established that a violation of

the defendant’s right to confront witnesses is subject

to harmless error analysis . . . . The state bears the

burden of proving that the error is harmless beyond a
reasonable doubt. . . . Whether such error is harmless

in a particular case depends upon 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, and, of course, the overall strength of the

prosecution’s case. . . . Most importantly, we must

examine the impact of the evidence on the trier of fact

and the result of the trial. . . . If the evidence may

have had a tendency to influence the judgment of the

jury, it cannot be considered harmless.’’ (Citations omitted; emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted.)

State v. Smith, 289 Conn. 598, 628, 960 A.2d 933 (2008).

‘‘[A]s we have often noted, proof beyond a reasonable

doubt does not mean proof beyond all possible doubt

. . . .’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks

omitted.) State v. Sinclair, 173 Conn. App. 1, 10, 162

A.3d 43, cert. granted on other grounds, 326 Conn. 904,

A.3d (2017).

The jury reasonably could have found the following

relevant facts. While investigating the crime scene on

May 19, 2006, investigators observed black tape on the

victim’s face. Frank Gall, a detective from the department, determined that a company named ‘‘Permacel’’

manufactured the tape found on the victim’s face, and

described it as being ‘‘somewhat out of the ordinary.’’

Notably, Chromalloy used Permacel tape due to its

durable qualities. Tests by forensic trace evidence

experts also revealed that the tape on the victim’s face

possessed ‘‘similar physical and instrumental characteristics’’ to tape seized from the defendant’s residence

on May 26, 2006. Of particular significance, prior to

the victim’s death, the defendant informed his cousin,

Anthony Pugh, that he ‘‘wanted to kill [the victim]’’ and

planned to use tape and other ‘‘stuff from work’’ so that

there would be no evidence left behind.

The state introduced evidence of the defendant’s

whereabouts prior to the victim’s death. Andrew

Weaver, a sergeant from the Hartford Police Department, testified for the state regarding ‘‘call data record

mapping.’’9 Using cell phone data from the defendant’s

phone records on May 19, 2006, Weaver determined

that the defendant was in close proximity to the victim’s

Milford home hours before her mother found her body.

Additionally, Michael Shuckerow, a neighbor of the victim at the time of her death, testified that he saw a

vehicle similar to one owned by the defendant parked

on the victim’s street and driving near her address on

May 18 and 19, 2006, between 12 p.m. and 2 p.m. on both

days. Shuckerow also made an in-court identification

of the defendant as the individual operating the vehicle

that he observed. Nicholas Yang, a forensic science

examiner, also testified as a witness for the state regarding certain DNA evidence taken from the crime scene.
Yang testified that the DNA evidence collected from

the bathroom sink and toilet in the victim’s home was

either consistent with the defendant’s DNA profile, or

that his DNA profile could not be eliminated as a contributor.

On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude

that the challenged testimony was cumulative of

Wydra’s subsequent testimony and also corroborated

other testimony presented to the jury.10 The sole testimony that the defendant claims violated his right to

confrontation is Wydra’s statement that ‘‘[e]veryone we

talked to at the car dealerships said that they had no

recollection of someone matching [the defendant’s]

description [visiting on May 19, 2006].’’ The defendant

does not challenge Wydra’s testimony that ‘‘I had

explained to [the defendant] that we had gone to these

car lots and they said that they had not seen him.’’

(Emphasis added.) The challenged testimony is thus

essentially cumulative of unchallenged testimony

before the jury. Additionally, Wydra’s testimony was

consistent with the state’s theory of the case and the

testimony of Adams, Weaver, and Shuckerow, all of

which provided a firm basis for the jury to doubt the

defendant’s version of events on May 19, 2006.

Finally, the state presented a strong case against the

defendant, even if some of the evidence was circumstantial. See, e.g., State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97, 137,

156 A.3d 506 (2017) (‘‘[i]t is immaterial to the probative

force of the evidence that it consists, in whole or in part,

of circumstantial rather than direct evidence’’ [internal

quotation marks omitted]). Because the victim’s

autopsy revealed that she died as a result of multiple

stab wounds and blunt trauma to her head, the critical

issue for the state was to establish the identity of the

perpetrator. The state presented a strong case identifying the defendant as the perpetrator by demonstrating

that he devised a plan to kill the victim, that he was in

the area of or inside her home at approximately the

time of her death, and that a distinct type of tape, to

which he had access, was used in connection with

her death.11

Having reviewed the record in its entirety, we conclude that Wydra’s testimony that ‘‘[e]veryone we talked

to at the car dealerships said that they had no recollection of someone matching [the defendant’s] description

[visiting on May 19, 2006]’’ had no discernible effect on

the outcome of the trial. This testimony was largely

cumulative, not essential to the state’s case, and paled

in comparison to other evidence connecting the defendant to the victim’s murder. We conclude that any impropriety in admitting the challenged testimony was

harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, and, accordingly,

the defendant’s claim fails under the fourth prong of

Golding.

III
The defendant’s final claim is that the trial court

committed plain error when it did not dismiss, sua

sponte, the burglary in the first degree charge, which

had been brought beyond the applicable statute of limitations. In response, the state argues that the statute

of limitations is an affirmative defense that must be

pleaded and proven by the defendant at trial. We agree

with the state.

The following facts and procedural history are relevant to this claim. The charge of burglary in the first

degree stemmed from the victim’s murder on May 19,

2006. A warrant for the defendant’s arrest issued on

August 24, 2012, and the defendant was arrested on

September 5, 2012. Because burglary in the first degree

is a class B felony, the five year statute of limitations

applied and the charge against the defendant should

have been brought by May 19, 2011. See General Statutes §§ 53a-35a (6), 53a-101 (c), and 54-193 (b).12

‘‘[An appellant] cannot prevail under [the plain error

doctrine] . . . unless he demonstrates that the claimed

error is both so clear and so harmful that a failure to

reverse the judgment would result in manifest injustice.’’ (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks

omitted.) State v. McClain, 324 Conn. 802, 812, 155 A.3d

209 (2017); see Practice Book § 60-5. Moreover, ‘‘a clear

and obvious mistake on the part of the trial court is a

prerequisite for reversal under the plain error doctrine

. . . .’’ State v. Coward, 292 Conn. 296, 307, 972 A.2d

691 (2009).

The defendant concedes that he did not raise at trial

a statute of limitations defense to the burglary in the

first degree charge. Having failed to assert this defense

at trial, the defendant is deemed to have waived such

defense and is, therefore, barred from raising it on

appeal. See, e.g., State v. Coleman, 48 Conn. App. 260,

268–69, 709 A.2d 590 (1998) (defendant waived statute

of limitations defense by not raising it at trial and, therefore, defendant barred from raising it on appeal), aff’d,

251 Conn. 249, 741 A.2d 1 (1999), cert. denied, 529 U.S.

1061, 120 S. Ct. 1570, 146 L. Ed. 2d 473 (2000); see also

State v. Middlebrook, 51 Conn. App. 711, 713 n.4, 725

A.2d 351 (‘‘statute of limitations is not a jurisdictional

bar to prosecution; it is an affirmative defense, which

must be raised and can be waived’’), cert. denied, 248

Conn. 910, 731 A.2d 310 (1999); Practice Book §§ 41-2

and 41-4.13 Moreover, the defendant has not provided

us with any controlling authority, and we are unaware

of any, indicating that it is the responsibility of the trial

court, sua sponte, to dismiss criminal charges that are

brought beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

Cf. State v. Crawford, 202 Conn. 443, 451, 521 A.2d 1034

(1987) (defendant bears burden of proving statute of

limitations affirmative defense); State v. Woodtke, 130

Conn. App. 734, 740, 25 A.3d 699 (2011) (same).14 Having

failed to raise his statute of limitations defense at trial,
we are compelled to conclude, in light of our case law

and applicable rules of practice, that the defendant is

not entitled to reversal of his conviction for burglary

in the first degree under the plain error doctrine in

this proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

1 The defendant also argues that the court committed legal error by ‘‘bootstrapping’’ hearsay evidence into an exception to the hearsay rule when it

relied on the contents of the victim’s statements as proof that the statements

fit within the parameters of a spontaneous utterance, namely, in determining

whether a startling event occurred. We decline to review this particular

claim because it was not distinctly raised at trial. See, e.g., State v. Rosado,

134 Conn. App. 505, 516 n.3, 39 A.3d 1156 (declining to review defendant’s

claim, raised for first time on appeal, that certain evidence fell within identification exception to hearsay rule), cert. denied, 305 Conn. 905, 44 A.3d 181

(2012); see also Practice Book §§ 5-2, 5-5, and § 60-5.

2 After providing this testimony, the court asked Morton, ‘‘what exactly

did you hear her say?’’ In response, Morton stated: ‘‘Well, she told me to

hold on because someone was at her door. I could hear her in the background

saying what are you doing here? You were supposed to actually call first.

So, that’s when she got back on the phone and she told me I’ll call you right

back. She called me back; we talked. She didn’t say anything happened or

nothing like that. That is basically it.’’ (Emphasis added.)

3 Morton’s testimony was admitted in accordance with State v. Whelan,

200 Conn. 743, 752, 513 A.2d 86, cert. denied, 479 U.S. 994, 107 S. Ct. 597,

93 L. Ed. 2d 598 (1986). On appeal, the defendant does not challenge the

admission of Morton’s testimony in accordance with Whelan.

4 See, e.g., State v. Slater, 285 Conn. 162, 179, 939 A.2d 1105 (declarant

raped at knifepoint), cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1085, 128 S. Ct. 2885, 171 L. Ed.

2d 822 (2008); State v. Kirby, supra, 280 Conn. 376 (declarant assaulted,

tied up, and kidnapped); State v. Wargo, supra, 255 Conn. 126–27 (children

watched house burn after father killed their mother); Perry v. Haritos,

supra, 100 Conn. 483–85 (declarant driver hit pedestrian with vehicle); State

v. Serrano, 123 Conn. App. 530, 537–38, 1 A.3d 1277 (2010) (declarant

observed assault with blunt object), cert. denied, 300 Conn. 909, 12 A.3d

1005 (2011); State v. Nelson, 105 Conn. App. 393, 407, 937 A.2d 1249 (declarant

robbed, burned, beaten, threatened with murder, tied up, and driven around),

cert. denied, 286 Conn. 913, 944 A.2d 983 (2008); State v. Thomas, 98 Conn.

App. 384, 387–88, 909 A.2d 57 (2006) (declarant discovered murder weapon),

cert. denied, 281 Conn. 906, 916 A.2d 47 (2007); State v. Westberry, 68 Conn.

App. 622, 626–32, 792 A.2d 154 (declarant heard gunshots and saw victim

‘‘hit the ground’’), cert. denied, 260 Conn. 923, 797 A.2d 519 (2002).

5 We find support for this conclusion in State v. Reynolds, 152 Conn. App.

318, 347–48, 97 A.3d 999, cert. denied, 314 Conn. 934, 102 A.3d 85 (2014),

in which this court held that the victim’s statements to a 911 operator

regarding the unexpected appearance of a former boyfriend were spontaneous utterances. Although the defendant correctly observes that Reynolds

involved the appearance of a former boyfriend who was acting violently,

that distinguishing feature is not dispositive of the present case. ‘‘[T]he

application of the exception entails a uniquely fact bound inquiry.’’ State v.

Westberry, supra, 68 Conn. App. 628. In the present case, even if the defendant did not behave in a violent manner, his sudden appearance at the victim’s

doorstep overwhelmed her senses based on her fear of the defendant and

her expectation that he would call first. Thus, his appearance was sufficiently

unnerving to be considered a ‘‘startling event.’’

6 Even if we were to assume that the trial court erred in admitting the

victim’s statements, the defendant would not be entitled to a new trial,

as he failed to demonstrate that the nonconstitutional evidentiary error

substantially affected the verdict. See, e.g., State v. Edwards, 325 Conn. 97,

133, 156 A.3d 506 (2017) (noting that defendant bears burden of demonstrating nonconstitutional evidentiary error harmful). Although the victim’s

statements to Morton placed the defendant at the victim’s home hours before

her mother discovered her body, the defendant has not challenged on appeal

the introduction of other evidence placing him in close proximity to her

home around the time of her murder. See part II of this opinion. The victim’s

statements to Morton merely corroborated such unchallenged circumstantial

evidence that connected the defendant to the victim’s murder.
7 The sixth amendment to the United States constitution provides in relevant part that ‘‘[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the

right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .’’ The

defendant does not provide a separate argument under the Connecticut constitution.

8 The state, relying on State v. Benedict, 313 Conn. 494, 505–508, 98 A.2d 42

(2014), also argues that we should not review the defendant’s confrontation

claim. Specifically, the state argues that, ‘‘by waiting until appeal to raise

his confrontation claim, the defendant ambushes the state.’’ According to

the state, Benedict ‘‘cast[s] doubt on the vitality of [State v. Smith, 289

Conn. 598, 960 A.2d 993 (2008)].’’ As the state concedes, our Supreme Court

has not overruled Smith. In accordance with that decision, unpreserved

claims that the trial court violated the defendant’s right to confrontation

are reviewable under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 239–40, 567 A.2d 823

(1989), when an adequate record exists. See State v. Smith, supra, 289

Conn. 620–21.

9 According to Andrew Weaver, ‘‘[c]all data record mapping is when you

actually take the call data record or the record of your phone calls and we

can visualize that on a map. We can show where you were or where your

handset was when you utilized your cellular carrier service to either place

or receive a phone call.’’

10 The defendant testified on his own behalf. On cross-examination, he

testified as follows with respect to his visits to used car dealerships on May

19, 2006.

‘‘Q. And I believe that you testified on direct examination that you—that

you did not talk with any salesmen, right?

‘‘A. No, no salesmen.

‘‘Q. Okay. I believe your testimony was you didn’t want anybody bothering

you, correct?

‘‘A. No, I was just looking.

‘‘Q. Okay. And yes or no, did anybody come out and say ‘hey, there’s a

beauty right there; would you like to know how many miles are on it’?

‘‘A. No. It was damp outside.

‘‘Q. Nobody said that?

‘‘A. No, it was damp outside. Nobody was out there.

‘‘Q. So nobody came out to see you, correct?

‘‘A. Nobody was out there.

‘‘Q. Right. Nobody at any of these car dealerships, nobody at any car—

used car dealership, of the five that you went to, not one did somebody

come out and say ‘hey, can I help you with that’?’’

11 We are also unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument that admitting

Wydra’s testimony was not harmless beyond a reasonable because the prosecutor repeatedly referenced it during closing argument. See, e.g., State v.

Thompson, 266 Conn. 440, 456, 832 A.2d 626 (2003) (improperly admitted

testimony deemed harmless, in part, because ‘‘the state’s attorney did not

emphasize or rely upon the testimony during closing argument’’). Although

the prosecutor referred to Wydra’s testimony regarding the various car

dealerships and used car lots that Wydra and his team visited, the prosecutor’s comments, when read in context, were in reference to the prosecutor’s

broader argument that the cumulative effect of the evidence presented at

trial revealed that the defendant’s entire story was false, not simply his

statements to police that he visited various car dealerships and used car lots.

12 The record does not reflect why the state chose to pursue the burglary

in the first degree charge after the statute of limitations had run. We note,

however, that the state, on April 15, 2008, requested that ‘‘a reward be

posted’’ in connection with the victim’s murder because ‘‘the police [had]

not been able to develop sufficient evidence to arrest anyone.’’ On April 22,

2008, Governor M. Jodi Rell approved the state’s request in accordance

with General Statutes § 54-48. Thereafter, on June 19, 2008, Anthony Pugh

‘‘informed police that his cousin, [the defendant], indicated that he wanted

to kill [the victim] and would use items from work including tape, smocks

and booties in order to avoid detection.’’ Notwithstanding Anthony Pugh’s

June 19, 2008 statement, an arrest warrant was not issued until August 24,

2012. Thus, it appears that the investigation into the victim’s death remained

dormant for a period of time.

13 Practice Book § 41-2 provides that ‘‘[a]ny defense, objection or request

capable of determination without a trial of the general issue may be raised

only by a pretrial motion made in conformity with this chapter.’’ ‘‘This broad

provision makes clear that any defense, objection, or request capable of

determination without trial must be raised by pre-trial motion in conformity
with this Chapter.’’ (Emphasis in original.) D. Borden & L. Orland, 4 Connecticut Practice Series; Criminal Procedure, (4th Ed. 2007) § 41-2, p 345.

Practice Book § 41-4 provides in relevant part that ‘‘[f]ailure by a party,

at or within the time provided by these rules, to raise defenses . . . that

must be made prior to trial shall constitute a waiver thereof, but a judicial

authority, for good cause shown, may grant relief from such waiver . . . .’’

14 We are unpersuaded by the defendant’s argument and reliance on State

v. Marrero, 66 Conn. App. 709, 785 A.2d 1198 (2001) and State v. Kulmac,

230 Conn. 43, 644 A.2d 887 (1994), that waiver does not apply in the present

case. In Marrero, this court held that it was plain error for the trial court

not to provide an adequate instruction on a ‘‘drug-dependent person’’ within

the meaning of General Statutes §§ 21a-278 and 21a-278a. See State v. Marrero, supra, 720–24. Central to that decision, however, was this court’s

observation that, when instructing the jury, ‘‘[i]t is the function of the court

to state the rules of law and to explain the law to be applied to the facts

of the case . . . .’’ (Emphasis added.) Id., 723. In Kulmac, our Supreme

Court held that it was not plain error to convict the defendant of various

sexual assault and risk of injury of a child offenses when it was unclear

whether General Statutes § 53a-69 barred the challenged offenses. State v.

Kulmac, supra, 78. The court in Kulmac did not squarely address the argument raised by the state in the present case, which is that the defendant

waived his statute of limitations defense by failing to raise or prove it at

trial. Compare id., 76–78, with State v. Coleman, supra, 48 Conn. App. 268–69.

Both Marrero and Kulmac, therefore, are legally and factually distinguishable from the present case.