author: DiPENTIMA, C. J.

text:
    THOMAS LAMAR v. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM CORPORATION ET AL.
    (AC 33838)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Beach and Foti, Js.

      Argued May 30
    officially released October 30, 2012

      Matthew E. Dodd, with whom, on the brief, was Matthew P. Lascelle, for the appellant (plaintiff).

      James D. Moran, Jr., with whom, on the brief, was Maribeth M. McGloin, for the appellees (defendants).
   Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J.

The plaintiff, Thomas Lamar, appeals from the decision of the workers’ compensation review board (board) affirming the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner (commissioner) denying his motion to preclude the defendant employer, Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, from contesting the payment of benefits pursuant to the Workers’ Compensation Act (act), General Statutes § 31-276 et seq. We affirm the decision of the board.

The following facts, as found by the commissioner, and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of this appeal. On December 4, 2007, the defendant mailed a form 43 to contest the plaintiffs claim for benefits. As of this date, the plaintiff had not filed a notice of his claim via a form 30C. The defendant’s form 43 was sent by certified mail to the plaintiff, who never claimed it. In this form 43, the defendant listed the date of injury as September 6, 2007, the body part injured as lymph nodes, and the nature of the injury as sarcoidosis. The defendant also indicated the reason for the contest as: “[The plaintiff] did not suffer an injury which arose out of or in the course of his employment.”

On December 10, 2007, the plaintiff filed a form 30C. The form indicated that the injury was repetitive trauma and the date of injury as January 1, 2005, through the “present.” He also listed the body parts injured as “lungs, respiratory complaints.” On February 6, 2008, the defendant filed a second form 43, again listing the date of injury as September 6, 2007, the body parts injured as “lungs, respiratory complaints,” and the nature of the injury as “repetitive trauma/sarcoidosis.” The defendant again listed the reason for the contest as: “[The plaintiff] did not suffer an injury which arose out of [or in] the course of his employment.”

The plaintiff argued to the commissioner that both disclaimers filed by the defendant should have been precluded as a matter of law. Specifically, he claimed that, as to the first disclaimer, (1) service was improper under General Statutes § 31-321 and (2) the disclaimer failed to specify the date of the alleged injury or place him on notice of any real defense. He also argued that the second disclaimer was untimely and lacked sufficient specificity.

The commissioner determined that the defendant’s use of certified mail to send the first disclaimer to the plaintiff satisfied the requirements of § 31-321, despite the plaintiffs failure to claim it. With respect to the issue of the sufficiency of the first disclaimer, the commissioner stated: “I find that the form 43 received by the commission on December 12, 2007, via certified mail lists a specific date of injury as September 6, 2007. The form 30C, which was filed after the form 43, lists a range of dates from January 1, 2005, through the present, which includes the date on the form 43 of September 6, 2007. The nature of the injury is listed as sarcoidosis, and the reason for the contestment states that the [plaintiff] did not suffer an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. I find that the [plaintiff], reading this document as a whole, was provided with sufficient information and was placed on notice that the [defendant was] denying his claim due to the condition of sarcoidosis, which developed during the time period alleged in the form 30C.” Accordingly, the commissioner denied the motion to preclude filed by the plaintiff pursuant to General Statutes § 31-294c (b).

The plaintiff appealed from this decision to the board. In its decision, the board noted that the plaintiff had not filed a motion to correct the facts found by the commissioner. With respect to the issue of the service of the first disclaimer, the board noted that § 31-321, written in the disjunctive, allows for service in three ways: personal service, certified mail or registered mail. Turning to the adequacy of the disclaimer, the board first observed that there was no statutory or preceden-tial bar to filing a preemptive disclaimer, that is, one filed before the notice of claim. It then rejected the claim that the first disclaimer was too vague, concluding that it placed the plaintiff on notice that the defendant’s position was that the injury was personal in nature, and, thus, outside the scope of the act. See General Statutes § 31-275 (16) (A). It then reasoned: “When a [defendant] files a form 43 contesting liability and acknowledges a date of injury under which this commission retains jurisdiction, the initial inaccuracy as to the precise theory of recovery does not materially prejudice the claimant. ... In addition . . . the [plaintiff] was properly apprised as to the nature of the injury for which the [defendant] disclaimed responsibility. In the present case, the disclaimer acknowledges [that] an alleged injury occurred within the dates in which the [plaintiff] asserts he has exposure to repetitive trauma. We simply do not find [that] the form 43 in this case violates the terms of the statute governing disclaimers. As noted, it appears to clearly enunciate [that] the [defendant] is challenging the etiology of the [plaintiffs] injury and does not advance another theory of defense. ” For these reasons, the board affirmed the decision of the commissioner. This appeal followed. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

Before addressing the specifics of the plaintiffs appeal, we set forth the principles relevant to our workers’ compensation jurisprudence. “The purpose of the [workers’] compensation statute is to compensate the worker for injuries arising out of and in the course of employment, without regard to fault, by imposing a form of strict liability on the employer .... The [act] compromise [s] an employee’s right to a common law tort action for work related injuries in return for relatively quick and certain compensation. . . . The act indisputably is a remedial statute that should be construed generously to accomplish its purpose. . . . The humanitarian and remedial purposes of the act counsel against an overly narrow construction that unduly limits eligibility for workers’ compensation. . . . Further, our Supreme Court has recognized that the state of Connecticut has an interest in compensating injured employees to the fullest extent possible .... In order to recover pursuant to this act, a plaintiff must prove that the claimed injury is connected causally to the employment by demonstrating that the injury (1) arose out of the employment and (2) occurred in the course of the employment.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Jones v. Connecticut Children’s Medical Center Faculty Practice Plan, 131 Conn. App. 415, 422-23, 28 A.3d 347 (2011).

I

The plaintiff first claims that the defendant’s initial form 43 is invalid because it was not served in accordance with § 31-321. Specifically, he argues that because the defendant was aware that he had not received the notice sent by certified mail, the defendant was required to attempt personal service. We are not persuaded.

The plaintiffs claim is one of statutory interpretation. This issue presents a question of law “over which we exercise plenary review. . . . The process of statutory interpretation involves the determination of the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of the case, including the question of whether the language does so apply. . . . When construing a statute, [o]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. ... In other words, we seek to determine, in a reasoned manner, the meaning of the statutory language as applied to the facts of [the] case, including the question of whether the language actually does apply. ... In seeking to determine that meaning, General Statutes § l-2z directs us first to consider the text of the statute itself and its relationship to other statutes. If, after examining such text and considering such relationship, the meaning of such text is plain and unambiguous and does not yield absurd or unworkable results, extratextual evidence of the meaning of the statute shall not be considered. . . . When the language of a statute is not plain and unambiguous, we look for interpretive guidance to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to . . . common law principles governing the same general subject matter.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Arias v. Geisinger, 126 Conn. App. 860, 865-66, 15 A.3d 641, cert. denied, 300 Conn. 941, 17 A.3d 476 (2011).

To resolve this claim, we must consider the interplay between two statutes. “Section 31-294c (b) dictates the strict standards of an employer that seeks to contest liability. Section 31-294c (b) provides in relevant part: Whenever liability to pay compensation is contested by the employer, he shall file with the commissioner, on or before the twenty-eighth day after he has received a written notice of claim, a notice in accord with a form prescribed by the chairman of the Workers’ Compensation Commission stating that the right to compensation is contested, the name of the claimant, the name of the employer, the date of the alleged injury or death and the specific grounds on which the right to compensation is contested. The employer shall send a copy of the notice to the employee in accordance with section 31-321. . . . Notwithstanding the provisions of this subsection, an employer who fails to contest liability for an alleged injury or death on or before the twenty-eighth day after receiving a written notice of claim and who fails to commence payment for the alleged injury or death on or before such twenty-eighth day, shall be conclusively presumed to have accepted the compensa-bility of the alleged injury or death. The workers’ compensation commission created the form 43 for use in complying with § 31-294c (b).” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Mehan v. Stamford, 127 Conn. App. 619, 626-27, 15 A.3d 1122, cert. denied, 301 Conn. 911, 19 A.3d 180 (2011).

Section 31-321 provides in relevant part: “Unless otherwise specifically provided, or unless the circumstances of the case or the rules of the commission direct otherwise, any notice required under this chapter to be served upon an employer, employee or commissioner shall be by written or printed notice, service personally or by registered or certified mail addressed to the person upon whom it is to be served at the person’s last-known residence or place of business. . . .” This statute, therefore, governs the manner in which notice is to be served under the workers’ compensation act. Yelunin v. Royal Ride Transportation, 121 Conn. App. 144, 149, 994 A.2d 305 (2010).

It is undisputed that the form 43 was sent to the plaintiff by certified mail. Under the plain meaning of the statute, written in the disjunctive, the defendant complied with the requirements of § 31-321. The plaintiff would have us read a duty or obligation into the statute that simply is not there. There is no further requirement for the defendant in this case; it properly used one of the three methods established in § 31-321. “We are constrained to read a statute as written . . . and we may not read into clearly expressed legislation provisions which do not find expression in its words.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Curley v. Kaiser, 112 Conn. App. 213, 224, 962 A.2d 167 (2009). The text of the statute does not contemplate any further action required if the intended recipient of the notice, in this case, the plaintiff, fails to claim it. Additionally, the plaintiffs interpretation would lead to the bizarre result of allowing the recipients of such notices to eviscerate two methods of service endorsed by the legislature by refusing to claim either the certified or registered mail. “We have often recognized that those who promulgate statutes ... do not intend to promulgate statutes . . . that lead to absurd consequences or bizarre results.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Shortell v. Cavanagh, 300 Conn. 383, 388-89, 15 A.3d 1042 (2011). Last, we note that the plaintiff has failed to cite to authority in support of his reading of § 31-321. For all these reasons, the plaintiffs claim must fail.

n

The plaintiff next claims that the defendant’s form 43 failed to sufficiently specify the grounds on which the defendant was contesting his right to compensation. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that the form amounts to a general denial because it failed to provide any notice of any specific or substantive defense and incorrectly alleged the date of his injury. We are not persuaded by either argument.

We first consider the plaintiffs argument that the defendant’s notice was essentially a general denial. In Menzies v. Fisher, 166 Conn. 338, 341, 334 A.2d 452 (1973), our Supreme Court considered whether an employer’s notice that stated, “ ‘[w]e deny a compensa-ble accident or injury,’ was fatally deficient in failing to specify the grounds on which compensation was denied.” It noted that, contrary to the purpose of the statute, “[a] general denial that a claimant has a com-pensable injury reveals no specific defense or reason why the claim is contested. Such a conclusory statement would leave open numerous possible defenses .... As far as notifying the claimant of the specific grounds on which her claim was contested, the stated disclaimer apprised her of nothing except the fact that liability was contested. From this claimant’s vantage point, if the defendants proceed on the stated defense . . . she, the claimant, must be prepared to meet any number of undisclosed objections to recovery . . . . Neither the statute nor the [act] contemplates such an impediment to bona fide claims.” Id., 344.

The court in Menzies further instructed that “the sufficiency of the notice under the statute must be judged not by the technical meaning which a court might attach to it, nor by a meaning the defendant subsequently discloses at the hearing, but rather by the criterion of whether it reveals to the claimant specific substantive grounds for the contest.” Id., 345. Ultimately, the court held that the employer must provide a notice setting forth the specific grounds on which compensation under the act is contested as a condition precedent to the defense of the action. Id., 347. “The notice by the employer need not be expressed with the technical precision of a pleading, but it must, as required by the statute, reveal to the claimant the specific grounds on which the right to compensation is contested. . . . The rule contemplates and requires only the simplest procedure and compliance with it enables the principal issues to be framed before a hearing is commenced.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 347-48. We followed the controlling precedent of Menzies in Wilcox v. Naugatuck, 16 Conn. App. 676, 677-78, 548 A.2d 469 (1988), and concluded that the following employer’s disclaimer failed to meet the statutory requirements: “Employee did not sustain accidental injury as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Act. We deny the injury, any disability and casual relation.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 677.

In Tovish v. Gerber Electronics, 19 Conn. App. 273, 562 A.2d 76, cert. denied, 212 Conn. 814, 565 A.2d 538 (1989), this court again was presented with the issue of the sufficiency of an employer’s notice contesting the right to compensation under the act. We stated that “[t]he essence of the disclaimer was as follows: [Ijnjury (heart attack) did not arise out of or in the course and scope of employment.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 274. We then set forth the requirements necessary for a workers’ compensation claim. “A claimant for workers’ compensation benefits must prove five distinct elements in order to establish a prima facie claim: (1) the workers’ compensation commission has jurisdiction over the claim; (2) the claim has been timely brought by filing a notice of claim within the requisite time period or by coming within one of the exceptions thereto; (3) the claimant is a qualified claimant under the act; (4) the respondent is a covered employer under the act; and (5) the claimant has suffered a personal injury as defined by the act, arising out of and in the course of employment. J. Asselin, Connecticut Workers’ Compensation Practice Manual (1985) § 1.” Tovish v. Gerber Electronics, supra, 275-76. We concluded that the employer’s disclaimer “clearly contest[ed] the fifth element.” Id., 276. Five years later, in a case with a similar disclaimer, our Supreme Court reached the same conclusion in Pereira v. State, 228 Conn. 535, 541-42, 637 A.2d 392 (1994). In the present case, the defendant’s December, 2007 form 43 set forth the following reason for contesting the plaintiffs right to compensation benefits: “[The plaintiff] did not suffer an injury which arose out of or in the course of his employment.” The language essentially mirrors that of the notices used in Tovish and Pereira. In those cases, our appellate courts concluded that the notices met the specificity requirements for a valid notice to contest benefits under the act. We reach the same conclusion here.

We now turn to the plaintiffs argument that the notice of disclaimer filed by the defendant failed to allege the correct time period of his repetitive trauma injury. The defendant counters that because the date of injury set forth on its notice fell within the period of time that the plaintiff alleged to have suffered the repetitive trauma, the plaintiff’s argument must fail. It further contends that its notice accomplished the objectives set by § 31-294c (b). We agree with the defendant.

As we have noted, the defendant filed its form 43 before the plaintiff filed his form 30C. The defendant’s notice to contest compensation listed the date of injury as September 6,2007, the affected body part as “LYMPH NODES” and the nature of the injury as “SARCOIDO-SIS.” The defendant did not check the box to indicate either an occupational disease or a repetitive trauma. The plaintiffs form 30C listed his date of injury as January 1, 2005, through the present and the body parts injured as “lungs, respiratory complaints.” The plaintiff checked the box to indicate that the injury was an occupational disease or a repetitive trauma.

We first address the plaintiffs argument that the defendant’s notice was insufficient because it listed the date of injury as September 6, 2007, and not as having occurred over a period of time. The plaintiff relies on Russell v. Mystic Seaport Museum, Inc., 252 Conn. 596, 748 A.2d 278 (2000). In that case, the employee filed a notice of claim alleging a repetitive trauma injury that had occurred prior to September 23, 1994. Id., 605. The court observed that “the process of injury from a repetitive trauma is ongoing until [the last date of exposure] . . . and, in many cases . . . the very nature of the injury will make it impossible to demarcate a specific date of injury.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 613. The defendant filed three form 43s, all indicating the date of the plaintiffs injury as May 2, 1991. Id., 619. Our Supreme Court concluded that these disclaimers were insufficient because they treated the plaintiffs claim as an accidental injury occurring on May 2,1991, rather than a repetitive injury that occurred prior to September 23, 1994. Id., 621.

We conclude that the present case is distinguishable from Russell. The date listed by the defendant’s form 43, September 6, 2007, fell within the time period established by the plaintiffs form 30C, January 1, 2005 through December, 2007. The plaintiffs reliance on Russell, therefore, is misplaced.

We also agree with the defendant that its form 43 satisfies the statutory requirements of § 31-294c (lb). “Our Supreme Court, in discerning the legislative intent behind the notice requirement of General Statutes (Rev. to 1968) § 31-297 (b), now § 31-294c (b), explained that the statute is meant to ensure (1) that employers would bear the burden of investigating a claim promptly and (2) that employees would be timely apprised of the specific reasons for the denial of their claim. . . . The court noted that the portion of the statute providing for a conclusive presumption of liability in the event of the employer’s failure to provide timely notice was intended to correct some of the glaring inequities of the workers’ compensation system, specifically, to remedy the disadvantaged position of the injured employee . . . .” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) DiBello v. Barnes Page Wire Products, Inc., 67 Conn. App. 361, 372, 786 A.2d 1234 (2001), cert. granted on other grounds, 260 Conn. 915, 796 A.2d 560 (2002) (appeal withdrawn June 26,2002); see also Chase v. State, 45 Conn. App. 499, 503, 696 A.2d 1299 (1997).

The defendant indisputably investigated the plaintiffs claim in a prompt manner, as its form 43 was filed before the form 30C. Additionally, the defendant made clear to the plaintiff the reason it was contesting the claim under the act; that is, the plaintiffs injury did not arise out of or in the course of his employment. Because this form 43 alerted the plaintiff to the specific substantive ground on which the defendant contested compen-sability, we conclude that the form 43 was sufficient. See Pereira v. State, supra, 228 Conn. 541.

The decision of the workers’ compensation review board is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       Liberty Mutual Insurance Group, the workers’ compensation liability insurer for Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation, also is a defendant. For convenience, we refer in this opinion to Boehringer Ingelheim Corporation as the defendant.

       “A form 43 is a disclaimer that notifies a claimant who seeks workers’ compensation benefits that the employer intends to contest liability to pay compensation. If an employer fails timely to file a form 43, a claimant may file a motion to preclude the employer from contesting the compensability of his claim.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gamez-Reyes v. Biagi, 136 Conn. App. 258, 261-62 n.6, 44 A.3d 197, cert. denied, 306 Conn. 905, 52 A.3d 731 (2012); see generally 2 A. Sevarmo, Connecticut Workers’ Compensation After Reforms (4th Ed. 2010) pp. 649-51.

       “A form 30C is the document prescribed by the workers’ compensation commission to be used when filing a notice of claim pursuant to the [act].” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Gamez-Reyes v. Biagi, 136 Conn. App. 258, 261 n.5, 44 A.3d 197, cert. denied, 306 Conn. 905, 52 A.3d 731 (2012); see generally 2 A. Sevarmo, Connecticut Workers’ Compensation After Reforms (4th Ed. 2010) pp. 626-28.

       Sarcoidosis is defined as “[a] systemic granulomatous disease of unknown cause, especially involving the lungs with resulting interstitial fibrosis, but also involving lymph nodes, skin, liver, spleen, eyes, phalangeal bones and parotid glands; granulomas are composed of epithelioid and multinucleated giant cells with little or no necrosis.” Stedman’s Medical Dictionary (27th Ed. 2000) p. 1593.

       “When an employer fails to comply with the statutory mandate of [General Statutes] § 31-294c and a motion to preclude is granted, the employer is precluded from contesting either the compensability of its employee’s claimed injury or the extent of the employee’s resulting disability. . . . Once a motion to preclude is granted, the only further role that an employer can play in the proceeding on the merits before the commissioner is to decide whether or not to stipulate to the compensation claimed. If the employer does not so stipulate, the claimant proceeds with his or her case, subject to examination by the commissioner without participation by the employer. . . . Preclusion, therefore, does not relieve a claimant of the obligation to prove his or her claim by competent evidence.” (Citations omitted.) Callender v. Reflexite Corp., 137 Conn. App. 324, 333-34, 49 A.3d 211 (2012).

       We have examined the decisions of the commissioner and the board and conclude that both considered only the initial form 43. For the purposes of this appeal, we also will consider only the validity of the initial form 43, mailed by the defendant on December 4, 2007.

       General Statutes § 31-275 (16) (A) provides: “ ‘Personal injury’ or ‘injury’ includes, in addition to accidental injury that may be definitely located as to the time when and the place where the accident occurred, an injury to an employee that is causally connected with the employee’s employment and is the direct result of repetitive trauma or repetitive acts incident to such employment, and occupational disease.”

       The parties stipulated that the December, 2007 form 43 was sent to the plaintiff and that he “did not claim it.”

       In Pereira, the employer’s disclaimer stated: “Respondents do contend [the] plaintiffs stress did not arise out of or in the course of her employment.” (Emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Pereira v. State, supra, 228 Conn. 542. Our Supreme Court further explained that “[although the disclaimer was not artfully drafted, it clearly apprises the plaintiff of the defendant’s intention to challenge an element of her claim, namely, whether the injury arose out of and in the course of employment Therefore, the defendant’s disclaimer complied with the specificity requirement of [the statute] . . . .” Id.

       General Statutes § 31-275 (16) (A) provides: “ ‘Personal injury’ or ‘injury’ includes, in addition to accidental injury that may be definitely located as to the time when and the place where the accident occurred, an injury to an employee that is causally connected with the employee’s employment and is the direct result of repetitive trauma or repetitive acts incident to such employment, and occupational disease.” (Emphasis added.) See also Callender v. Reflexite Corp., 137 Conn. App. 324, 332, 49 A.3d 211 (2012) (legislature intended to include repetitive trauma injuries among those com-pensable under act).

       Although this issue is not before us, we note that one treatise has opined that “[a] proper Form 43 filed before a proper Form 30C does not in and of itself . . . render the disclaimer deficient.” 2 A. Sevarino, Connecticut Workers’ Compensation After Reforms (4th Ed. 2010) p. 651; see also Gelinas v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 7 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 65 (August 16, 1989) (same); Lopez v. Peerless Aluminum Foundry, 6 Conn. Workers’ Comp. Rev. Op. 46 (October 18, 1988) (same).

       In its decision, the board stated that it found “that the reference to ‘sarcoidosis’ in the [defendant’s] form 43 was a result of the [plaintiffs] treating physician identifying the [plaintiffs] aliment as such.”

       We conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs argument that the defendant’s notice was ineffective because it failed to address his repetitive trauma claim is without merit. We agree with the reasoning of the board that such a “technical deficiency” did not prejudice the plaintiff and that the “harsh remedy” of preclusion is not warranted.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: ESPINOSA, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JULIO MORQUECHO
    (AC 33830)
    Beach, Bear and Espinosa, Js.

      Argued April 26
    officially released October 30, 2012

      Mary Beattie Schairer, special public defender, for the appellant (defendant).

      James M. Ralls, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Stephen J. Sedensky III, state’s attorney, and Warren Murray, supervisory assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).
   Opinion

ESPINOSA, J.

The defendant, Julio Morquecho, appeals from the judgment of conviction, rendered following a jury trial, of murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54a (a). The defendant claims that the court improperly (1) admitted expert testimony related to domestic violence and (2) admitted a witness’ prior testimony after determining that the witness was unavailable. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts in support of its verdict. The defendant, the victim, Maria Chuica, and their two children originally lived in Ecuador before moving to Danbury. The defendant and the victim never were married. Once living in Danbury, the victim worked at two different restaurants. In January, 2005, the victim’s two brothers, Jose Chuica and Luis Chuica, moved to Danbury from Ecuador, and, in February, 2005, they moved into an apartment with the defendant, the victim and the two children.

In the spring of 2005, the victim became involved romantically with a coworker, Abel Quinde. Upon learning of this, the defendant became angry and stated that he wanted to kill Quinde. The victim was afraid of the defendant and sought advice from staff at a women’s center in Danbury. Specifically, the victim received advice about how safely to move out of the apartment she shared with the defendant and how to care for her children during such a transition. In May, 2005, the victim moved out of her apartment with the help of law enforcement officers and without notifying her family of her whereabouts. She was admitted to a domestic violence crisis center in Norwalk on May 19, 2005.

When the defendant learned that the victim left their residence, he stated that if the victim and Quinde were together, he would kill Quinde. The defendant, relying on military training, stated to the victim’s brothers that the most efficient way to kill someone was to slit the person’s throat from behind, so that the person did not have time to react. As he said this, he made hand movements to demonstrate how he could kill someone in this manner.

On June 20, 2005, the victim applied for a restraining order against the defendant, alleging an immediate threat to her physical well-being. Four days later, the victim and Quinde were present at a scheduled appointment at the women’s center. The defendant confronted them inside the women’s center, upsetting the victim. Staff members of the women’s center escorted the victim to a secured area and called the police. When the police officers arrived, the defendant lied to the police concerning his presence and was arrested for violating a restraining order. In a hearing that followed, the defendant pleaded guilty to violating a restraining order. The court sentenced the defendant to 364 days incarceration, execution suspended, and two years of probation.

Sometime in July, 2005, the defendant, having learned of the victim’s whereabouts, drove to a violence crisis center in Norwalk, where he approached the victim. The defendant asked the victim to reunite with him. The defendant’s presence upset the victim, and she refused to reunite with the defendant.

The victim left the crisis center in July, 2005, and lived in Danbury, but she was compelled to relocate again because the defendant learned where she was living. In September, 2005, the victim moved into a new apartment in Danbury with her children and her brothers. The defendant learned where she was living, and he attempted to visit her at the apartment several times when her brothers were at work. In the fall of 2005, the defendant told an acquaintance of the victim that if the victim did not forgive him and return to him, she might not be with anybody else.

On September 12, 2005, the defendant and Quinde had a physical altercation on a public street in Danbury. When the police arrived, the victim was visibly upset, crying and shaking. During the altercation, Quinde appeared to be protecting the victim. Police officers arrested the defendant, who behaved in a highly agitated manner even after their arrival. The defendant pleaded guilty to violation of a restraining order and admitted to having violated his probation. For the finding of violation of probation, the court sentenced the defendant to a ninety day period of incarceration. For the conviction of violation of a restraining order, the court imposed a 364 day suspended sentence, followed by three years of probation, with the special condition that the defendant was to have no contact with the victim.

The defendant was released from prison on April 13, 2006. Shortly thereafter, the defendant went to the victim’s apartment. He spoke to the victim’s brothers, stating that he wanted to reunite with the victim but, if she was with someone else, “it would be better just to kill [her].” The defendant had a history of harassing the victim on her commute to work, on her commute home from work and at her workplace. This conduct upset the victim. On April 18,2006, the defendant visited the victim at her workplace. He told the victim that, if she did not stop seeing Quinde, he would kill her or Quinde, or take away her children. Although the defendant’s angry words upset the victim, there was no evidence that she called the police.

On April 19, 2006, the victim was scheduled to work at 5 p.m. Sometime after 6 p.m., the defendant asked an acquaintance of the victim whether she had seen the victim. The acquaintance had seen the victim, but she lied and said she had not because the defendant appeared to be angry. At the time, the defendant was carrying something, shaped like a ruler that was about twelve inches long, in a plastic bag under his arm. The acquaintance observed the defendant again later that evening around 11 p.m., not far from the victim’s apartment.

The victim left work at 1 a.m. on April 20, 2006, and drove one of her coworkers home. The coworker noticed that the victim appeared to be upset and asked her what was wrong. The victim stated that she was fearful of the defendant. She explained that sometimes the defendant would wait for her outside her apartment when she returned from work and that, on one such occasion, he grabbed her. The victim dropped off her coworker at the coworker’s Danbury residence at 1:40 a.m., before proceeding home.

Shortly after 6 a.m., Danbury police responded to a 911 call concerning the victim. When emergency personnel arrived on the scene, they discovered the victim dead on the ground in front of her apartment building. She exhibited two major wounds to her neck, wounds that were consistent with the use of a sharp instrument, as well as several other cuts and abrasions. Also, the victim exhibited defensive type wounds on her hands.

The police interviewed the defendant, who denied any involvement in the victim’s death. This appeal followed the defendant’s conviction for murder of the victim. Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

First, the defendant claims that the court improperly admitted expert testimony concerning domestic violence. We disagree.

At trial, the state presented testimony from Evan Stark, who holds a master’s degree in social work and is an expert in the field of domestic violence. Stark testified concerning his credentials and experience in the field of domestic violence. He defined the term “domestic violence” and discussed different types of domestic violence. Additionally, Stark testified with regard to the traits exhibited by victims of domestic violence generally, such as their gender, reporting habits and behavior. Stark testified about characteristics common to relationships characterized by domestic violence, such as jealousy, stalking, threats and fear. At the conclusion of his testimony, Stark testified that he “[knew] nothing about this case, except . . . the very basics.” Stark did not testify with regard to any specific facts of the present case and did not opine that the victim was a victim of domestic abuse.

The court permitted Stark’s testimony over the defendant’s objection. On appeal, the defendant raises a multifaceted challenge to the court’s admission of the testimony. Before turning to the specific arguments of the defendant, we set forth our standard of review. “The trial court’s ruling on evidentiary matters will be overturned only upon a showing of a clear abuse of the court’s discretion. . . . We will make every reasonable presumption in favor of upholding the trial court’s ruling, and only upset it for a manifest abuse of discretion. . . . [Thus, our] review of such rulings is limited to the questions of whether the trial court correctly applied the law and reasonably could have reached the conclusion that it did.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Coccomo, 302 Conn. 664, 670-71, 31 A.3d 1012 (2011).

A

First, the defendant argues that the court should have excluded Stark’s testimony on the ground that, in light of the factual findings to be made by the jury, “[t]he jury did not need the assistance of an expert to make its decision.” Stated otherwise, the defendant argues that Stark’s testimony was unlikely to have assisted the jury because the jury could have resolved the issues before it by applying its common knowledge and everyday experience in the affairs of life.

“A witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, education or otherwise may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise concerning scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge, if the testimony will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.” Conn. Code Evid. § 7-2.

Stark provided testimony about domestic violence and the general behavioral traits of persons in a relationship characterized by domestic violence. There is no dispute that Stark was qualified as an expert and that his testimony was based on specialized knowledge. The defendant characterizes his claim as whether Stark’s testimony was “necessary” to resolve an ultimate issue of fact, yet our standard for the admission of expert testimony permits the admission of such testimony when such testimony “will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence . . . .” Conn. Code Evid. § 7-2. There was ample evidence in this case that the defendant, by the use of violent and threatening conduct, attempted to control the victim. There was evidence that the victim and the defendant were in a relationship characterized by domestic violence. The defendant has failed to demonstrate that Stark’s testimony would not assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence, specifically, the nature of the victim’s behavior in relation to the defendant, which, certainly, was relevant to evaluating whether the defendant caused her death.

Specifically, we note the evidence that the victim exhibited defensive wounds and that her assault likely began in a dark secluded area near her residence after 1:40 a.m. The evidence did not suggest that the victim initially was assaulted near her automobile or near the entry to her residence. There was no evidence that the victim called for help or used her cellular telephone to summon assistance. On these facts, it could be inferred that the victim interacted, albeit briefly, with her assailant. Insofar as the state attempted to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was the assailant, it was advantageous to the state’s case for the state to demonstrate that the victim afforded the defendant an opportunity to commit the crime at that time and place. To this end, it was helpful for the jury to understand why the victim might have interacted with the defendant at all, rather than immediately taking flight from him.

Stark testified that, generally, domestic violence relationships do not end neatly but persist in some form despite the physical separation of the parties. Stark testified that, despite taking steps to end abusive relationships, victims of domestic violence typically continue to interact with their abusers for a variety of reasons, such as reducing the level of violence in the ongoing relationship or merely achieving immediate protection. Insofar as this observation conveyed “scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge”; Conn. Code Evid. § 7-2; we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be helpful to the jury in its assessment of the evidence. There was ample evidence that the victim feared the defendant and that she attempted to end her contact with the defendant. She sought counseling, moved out of the residence that she shared with the defendant and obtained a protective order. To the extent that this evidence might have appeared to contradict a finding that the victim interacted with the defendant, even briefly, at the time of the murder, Stark’s testimony concerning the conduct of victims of domestic violence was useful to the jury in its appraisal of the victim’s conduct and whether, as the state argued, the defendant was the perpetrator of the victim’s murder. Thus, we conclude that the court’s admission of the testimony was not an abuse of discretion.

B

Next, as he did at trial, the defendant argues that Stark’s testimony was inadmissible because it concerned battered woman’s syndrome and, thus, was irrelevant. As the defendant correctly points out, the state conceded at trial that the victim was not a battered woman in that it did not rely on evidence that, prior to the events at issue, the defendant physically assaulted the victim such that she could be considered a battered woman.

Our review of Stark’s testimony leads us to conclude that his testimony did not pertain to battered woman’s syndrome, but to the broader topic of the behavior of persons in a relationship characterized by domestic violence. Stark’s testimony was in no way limited to relationships marked by physical abuse, but those marked by violent and threatening conduct aimed at coercing a victim to behave in a certain way. Because this aspect of the claim is not based on the evidence presented at trial, it is without merit.

C

Next, the defendant claims that Stark’s testimony was inadmissible on relevance grounds “[bjecause the relationship at issue did not fall within the parameters of Stark’s definition of domestic violence . As set forth earlier in this opinion, Stark defined domestic violence as a situation in which one person uses forms of coercion, typically including violence and threats, to hurt, to frighten or to subjugate a victim. Stark testified that there are at least two patterns of domestic violence. One involves physical violence accompanied by psychological abuse. The other involves “a much more complex pattern . . . called coercive control.” Stark stated: “[Wjhat’s going on in that situation is, in addition to violence and forms of emotional abuse, usually, patterns designed to isolate a victim, degrade or shame them sexually, intimidate them, frighten them . . . and, perhaps, most importantly, to control them . . . .”

Our review of the record reflects that, at trial, the defendant argued that Stark’s testimony was inadmissible because there was no evidence that the victim was a battered woman or that the defendant had engaged in physical violence against the victim. The defendant did not argue that Stark’s testimony was irrelevant because the evidence did not fit into either of the types of domestic violence described by Stark; the defendant’s relevancy objection preceded this testimony. Because this aspect of the defendant’s evidentiary claim was not distinctly raised at trial, we do not reach its merits. See, e.g., State v. Alvarez, 216 Conn. 301, 306, 579 A.2d 515 (1990) (“[o]nce counsel states the authority and ground of his objection, any appeal will be limited to the ground asserted” [internal quotation marks omitted]).

D

Next, the defendant argues that Stark’s testimony concerning nonphysical “ ‘coercive control’ ” in relationships characterized by domestic violence “was irrelevant because Stark had not reviewed the evidence regarding [the] defendant’s specific domestic situation prior to trial and had never made a diagnosis [concerning his relationship with the victim].” Relying on State v. Carpenter, 275 Conn. 785, 794-813, 882 A.2d 604 (2005), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1025, 126 S. Ct. 1578, 164 L. Ed. 2d 309 (2006), the defendant asserts that Stark’s testimony, insofar as it pertained to codependency in a relationship characterized by domestic violence, was irrelevant absent a psychological evaluation of the defendant and the victim, followed by a diagnosis that the parties were in a codependent relationship.

The record reflects that, at trial, the defendant objected on relevancy grounds to the admission of Stark’s testimony. The record, however, does not reflect that the defendant raised an objection that was grounded, even tangentially, in terms related to the present argument. Accordingly, we decline to review this aspect of the defendant’s claim. See, e.g., State v. Alvarez, supra, 216 Conn. 306.

E

Next, the defendant argues that the court should have excluded Stark’s testimony because “it improperly implicated [him] in the crime.” The defendant takes issue with four questions asked of Stark during the state’s direct examination. Specifically, the prosecutor, following Stark’s testimony about domestic violence relationships in general, asked Stark to opine about whether women are safer when they leave domestic violence relationships, what role jealousy plays in domestic violence relationships, what significance stalking plays in domestic violence relationships and what significance threats to harm others plays in domestic violence relationships. On appeal, the defendant argues that these questions “[were] designed to explicitly elicit answers implicating [the] defendant in the crime. . . . [Their] goal was to convince the jury that [the] defendant was responsible for the crime based upon a sociologist’s testimony that other people’s behavior led to homicide.” The defendant argues that the questions, while “triggered by evidence the jury had heard,” elicited inadmissible propensity evidence.

The record does not reveal that, at trial, the defendant objected to these inquiries during the state’s examination of Stark or that the defendant raised an objection of this nature. For this reason, we decline to review this aspect of the defendant’s evidentiary claim. See, e.g., State v. Alvarez, supra, 216 Conn. 306.

F

Next, as he did at trial, the defendant argues that the court should have excluded Stark’s testimony on the ground that it was not merely adverse to the defense but unfairly prejudicial. Essentially, the defendant argues that the evidence lacked any probative value and that it was highly prejudicial in that it “unfairly created sympathy for [the victim], and anger toward [the] defendant.” We disagree.

“Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” Conn. Code Evid. § 4-3. “Because of the difficulties inherent in this balancing process, the trial court’s decision will be reversed only whe[n] abuse of discretion is manifest or whe[n] an injustice appears to have been done. ... On review by this court, therefore, every reasonable presumption should be given in favor of the trial court’s ruling.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Collins, 299 Conn. 567, 582, 10 A.3d 1005, cert. denied, U.S. , 132 S. Ct. 314, 181 L. Ed. 2d 193 (2011).

The defendant’s analysis inaccurately presumes that Stark’s testimony lacked any connection to the evidence in this case. Because it was reasonable to find that the defendant’s violent and threatening conduct caused the victim to fear him, to alter her living arrangements and to obtain a protective order against him, we conclude that Stark’s testimony was likely to assist the jury in evaluating the nature of the defendant’s relationship with the victim. Furthermore, the defendant argues that “[bjecause [Stark’s] conclusory testimony led the jurors to believe that it was the natural result that murders occur when certain factors are present, it gave the jury no choice but to conclude that [the] defendant had also murdered.” The flaw in this argument, however, is that Stark did not testify that murder is the natural or customary result of a relationship characterized by domestic violence. Moreover, the defendant argues that Stark’s testimony likely misled the jury into believing that its deliberations were easy, made its job seem “cut and dry” when, in fact, Stark knew almost nothing about the facts of this case. Insofar as Stark provided information about domestic violence relationships in general and testified clearly that his testimony was not based on his knowledge of the parties or the facts of this case, we disagree with this assessment of the testimony.

We disagree that the prejudicial effect of the evidence outweighed its probative value. Affording the court’s determination every reasonable presumption of correctness, we conclude that the court’s ruling was not an abuse of its discretion.

n

Next, the defendant claims that the court improperly permitted the state to present the prior testimony of Quinde on the ground that he was unavailable. We disagree.

The following additional facts underlie this claim. Prior to the presentation of evidence, the defendant’s attorney alerted the court to the fact that, at a prior criminal trial of the defendant that took place approximately five months earlier, the state presented the prior testimony, elicited during a probable cause hearing, of certain unavailable witnesses. The defendant’s attorney stated that although, at the prior trial, the court determined that the witnesses’ prior testimony was admissible on the ground that the witnesses were unavailable, the defense argued it was not proper to treat the issue as settled for purposes of the defendant’s present trial. The prosecutor addressed the issue, noting that the witnesses at issue were living outside of the United States and that, despite the state’s efforts, they declined to return to Connecticut for the prior trial. The prosecutor stated that the court, at the prior trial, determined that the witnesses were unavailable and that, by means of their cross-examination by the defendant at the probable cause hearing, there was no violation of the defendant’s right to confront the witnesses. The prosecutor stated that he intended to demonstrate that the witnesses still were unavailable for the present trial. Quinde was one of these unavailable witnesses.

During the present trial, in November, 2009, the state presented the testimony of Marylou Comstock, an investigator in the office of the state’s attorney. Com-stock testified that one of her duties in assisting in the preparation of cases for trial is to search for witnesses. Comstock testified that in January, 2009, as part of her work in this case, she was asked to locate Quinde. She testified that Quinde was living in Ecuador. Comstock testified that she searched for Quinde with the use of various databases and contacts. She testified that, in September, 2009, she searched once again for Quinde and that her research encompassed hospital data, motor vehicle data, tax data, department of correction data and department of labor data.

Additionally, the state presented testimony from Daniel Trompetta, a detective with the Danbury police department. Trompetta testified that, in connection with a probable cause hearing in this case, in 2007, he served a subpoena on Quinde at the Danbury residence of Quinde’s mother. Trompetta testified that, to his knowledge, sometime after Quinde testified at the probable cause hearing, he returned to Ecuador and remained in that country. Trompetta testified that, approximately six: months earlier, in connection with the earlier trial, he obtained Quinde’s telephone number in Ecuador from Quinde’s mother and that he spoke with Quinde. Trompetta testified that he told Quinde that his testimony at trial was crucial and asked Quinde to return to Connecticut but that Quinde indicated that “[h]e was not going to come back” and that “he had no interest in coming back . . . .” Nonetheless, Quinde asked Trompetta to advise him as to the outcome of the trial. Trompetta testified that he did not speak to Quinde after that conversation and did not speak to him in connection with the present trial. Trompetta testified that the state provided transportation and immigration assistance to two other witnesses who were living abroad, Georgina Diaz and Augusta Suarez, to ensure their presence at the trial.

Thereafter, the state offered Quinde’s testimony from the probable cause hearing on the ground that he was an unavailable witness. The defendant objected, arguing that the state had not demonstrated that it had exercised due diligence to present Quinde. Specifically, the defendant’s attorney argued that, unlike its efforts with regard to other witnesses that were not in Connecticut, the state did not demonstrate that it had offered either to finance Quinde’s travel to Connecticut from Ecuador or to handle immigration issues related to Quinde’s travel. The defendant’s attorney argued that because the state knew of Quinde’s whereabouts for several months, which was not the case at the time of the first trial, efforts of such nature were likely feasible and the fact that they were not made should be considered by the court when evaluating the state’s due diligence at the present trial. The court agreed with the defendant that the state had failed to demonstrate that Quinde was unavailable.

Later, the state presented the testimony of Maria Tigre, Quinde’s mother. Tigre testified that Quinde was in Ecuador, she spoke with Quinde two weeks earlier and Quinde did not want to return to Connecticut. Tigre testified that Quinde did not want to return to Connecticut because of concerns about what the defendant would do to him if he was released from prison. Also, the state presented testimony from Craig Martin, a detective with the Danbury police department. Martin testified that, two weeks earlier, with the assistance of a Spanish speaking police officer, he contacted Quinde in Ecuador and tried to convince him to return to Connecticut. Quinde refused. Martin testified that in the weeks prior to trial, the police left several messages for Quinde, but he did not respond to these messages.

Once more, the prosecutor asked the court to admit into evidence the probable cause hearing testimony of Quinde. The prosecutor asserted that it had made a sufficient showing that Quinde was unavailable. In his objection, the defendant’s attorney reiterated his earlier argument that the state had not demonstrated that it offered to assist Quinde in returning to Connecticut for trial. Although the defendant’s attorney argued that such offers of assistance were not necessary in all cases to demonstrate the unavailability of a witness, he argued that such efforts were necessary with regard to Quinde because the state had made such efforts to procure the live testimony of other witnesses in this case. The prosecutor represented that, although the state had provided travel assistance to two other witnesses after they had expressed a willingness to return to Connecticut for the trial, Quinde had not expressed such willingness. The prosecutor represented: “I don’t think there’s any reason to presume that, had . . . Quinde wanted to come back, that the state would not have [arranged for his transportation to and accommodations in Connecticut].”

The court ruled that the state met its burden of demonstrating that Quinde was unavailable. The court rejected the defendant’s position that, on the facts of this case, the state bore the burden of demonstrating that it had offered to provide for travel and accommodations. Accordingly, the court admitted a transcript of Quinde’s testimony at the probable cause hearing.

On appeal, the defendant takes issue with the court’s admission of the probable cause hearing testimony on the ground of Quinde’s unavailability. The defendant characterizes the state’s efforts to procure Quinde’s presence at the trial as less than diligent. The defendant asserts that the state merely located Quinde and took at “face value” his representation that he would not return to testify. The defendant argues that the admission of Quinde’s testimony deprived him of an opportunity to cast doubt on the testimony and an opportunity to demonstrate reasonable doubt of his guilt.

It is well established that, in certain circumstances, a party may present the prior testimony of a declarant who is unavailable to testify. See Conn. Code Evid. § 8-6 (1). “In State v. Frye, 182 Conn. 476, 481, 438 A.2d 735 (1980), our Supreme Court recognized five of the most common situations in which a declarant will be deemed unavailable to testify. The situation most relevant to the present case is one in which the declarant is absent from the hearing and the proponent of his statement has been unable to procure his attendance ... by process or other reasonable means. ... In inteipreting reasonable means, [our Supreme Court has] held that the proponent must exercise due diligence and, at a minimum, make a good faith effort to procure the declarant’s attendance. . . . The trial court has broad discretion in determining whether the proponent has shown a declarant to be unavailable. Only upon a showing of a clear abuse of discretion will this court set aside on appeal rulings on evidentiary matters. . . . [I]t is within the discretion of the trial court to accept or to reject the proponent’s representations regarding the unavailability of a declarant and the trial court’s ruling will generally not be disturbed unless the court has abused its discretion. . . .

“[D]ue diligence to procure the attendance of the absent witness [is] ... an essential . . . predicate of unavailability. ... To take advantage of the hearsay exceptions requiring unavailability, the proponent must show a good faith, genuine effort to procure the declar-ant’s attendance by process or other reasonable means. . . . This showing necessarily requires substantial diligence. In determining whether the proponent of the declaration has satisfied this burden of making reasonable efforts, the court must consider what steps were taken to secure the presence of the witness and the timing of efforts to procure the declarant’s attendance. ... A proponent’s burden is to demonstrate a diligent and reasonable effort, not to do everything conceivable, to secure the witness’ presence.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wright, 107 Conn. App. 85, 89-90, 943 A.2d 1159, cert. denied, 287 Conn. 914, 950 A.2d 1291 (2008).

We observe that the defendant does not argue that the court abused its discretion in accepting as true the evidence presented by the state with regard to its efforts to secure Quinde’s attendance at the trial. Nor does the defendant explicitly argue that the state had the ability to, but failed to, compel the attendance of Quinde, a foreign national, through its own process.

The record contains adequate evidence of the state’s efforts, which may be summarized as follows. With the use of various databases, Comstock was able to determine that Quinde was in Ecuador and that, as late as September, 2009, there was no record of his presence in the United States. In March, 2009, Trompetta obtained Quinde’s telephone number from his mother, Tigre, and spoke with Quinde via telephone, stressing the importance of his presence at trial. Quinde unambiguously stated that he was not returning to Connecticut to testify in the defendant’s prosecution. This sentiment plainly was echoed by his mother who spoke with Quinde just two weeks prior to her testimony. Lastly, Martin contacted Quinde through a Spanish speaking officer just two weeks prior to his testimony, but Quinde again stated that he would not return to Connecticut to testify. In the weeks following this conversation, Quinde did not respond to additional messages left for him by the police.

Thus, the record reflects that persons, on behalf of the state, determined Quinde’s whereabouts, conducted research to ensure that he was not in the United States, spoke with him about the importance of his presence at trial and directly inquired if he would return to testify. These efforts were made until the eve of trial. The gist of the defendant’s arguments is that the state conceivably could have done more to secure Quinde’s attendance by providing travel and immigration assistance to Quinde, taking steps to ensure that Quinde did not leave the country prior to trial and providing protection to Quinde during his stay in Connecticut. Again, the defendant argues that the state undertook greater efforts to secure the presence of other state witnesses who were living abroad.

There is no bright line test for gauging the diligence and reasonableness of the state’s efforts to secure the attendance of a witness living abroad. As stated previously in this opinion, the issue becomes a “judgment call” for the trial court, one that we review for an abuse of discretion. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Wright, supra, 107 Conn. App. 89. In light of the ample evidence in the record of the state’s timely and significant efforts to secure Quinde’s live testimony, we conclude that the court’s determination that the state made reasonable efforts was not an abuse of discretion. The defendant’s arguments that the state could have taken additional steps in an attempt to secure Quinde’s presence, or that perhaps it treated other witnesses differently, do not detract from the reasonableness of the state’s efforts. It bears emphasizing that a showing of due diligence does not require that the state “do everything conceivable,” but that it demonstrate that diligent and reasonable efforts were made. (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 90. Accordingly, the defendant has not demonstrated that the admission of Quinde’s probable cause hearing testimony was improper.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The court imposed a sentence of fifty-five years incarceration.

       Stark testified: “I would define domestic violence as any situation where a partner or a former partner of somebody who’s involved in a relationship uses forms of coercion, not limited to, but typically including, violence and threats, to hurt or to frighten or to subjugate, in some cases, or to make dependent, the victim in that instance.”

       At trial, the defendant, arguing that the court should preclude Stark’s testimony, raised a materially similar argument. Specifically, the defendant’s attorney argued that, because the evidence presented at trial did not reflect that the victim was physically abused by the defendant, Stark’s testimony concerning domestic violence was not “relevant” or “probative” to any issue in the present case.

       There was evidence that the defendant slapped the victim twice, that on one occasion the defendant waited near the victim’s driveway for her to return home and grabbed the victim by the arm when he encountered her and that the victim had obtained a protective order after alleging “an immediate and present physical danger to [her] and/or [her] minor children” posed by the defendant. A coworker of the victim described an incident in which the defendant followed the victim and her in his automobile as they drove home from work. During the incident, the defendant repeatedly turned the headlamps of his automobile on and off and nearly caused an automobile accident. Apart from the defendant’s threats against the victim’s well-being, he behaved violently in the victim’s presence by engaging in a physical altercation with Quinde in public. There was evidence that the defendant, on several occasions, threatened the victim, harassed the victim and greatly upset the victim.

       “[A]s a precautionary measure,” the defendant urges us to review any unpreserved aspects of his claim under the doctrine set forth in State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989); under the plain error doctrine codified in Practice Book § 60-5 or by the exercise of this court’s inherent supervisory authority over the administration of justice. The defendant, however, has not provided this court with a sufficient analysis of his claims under any of these doctrines. Nonetheless, even were we to determine that the defendant’s blanket invocation of these doctrines relating to extraordinary review was sufficient, we readily would conclude that none of them apply to the present evidentiary claim.

       At the prior trial, which was based on the events at issue in this case, the defendant was convicted of stalking in the first degree. The jury in that trial, however, was unable to reach a verdict as to the murder count.

       In light of our determination that the court properly admitted Quinde’s testimony on the ground that he was an unavailable witness, we need not discuss the substance of his testimony. Accordingly, we do not address the state’s alternate argument that Quinde’s testimony was cumulative of other evidence and that it was unlikely to have affected the jury’s verdict.

       Although the defendant argues in part that the court’s admission of the evidence violated his right to confrontation under the federal and state constitutions, we view the claim as being evidentiary, rather than constitutional, in nature. As a preliminary matter, we do not address the claim under the state constitution because the defendant did not provide this court with an independent analysis under the state constitution. See, e.g., State v. Vakilzaden, 272 Conn. 762, 768 n.11, 865 A.2d 1155 (2005) (declining to review state constitutional claim where claim not accompanied by independent analysis under state constitution). Furthermore, the defendant’s analysis merely focuses on the propriety of the court’s determination that Quinde was unavailable and, more specifically, whether the state exercised due diligence and made reasonable efforts to secure Quinde’s live testimony at trial.
      Beyond stating that the court violated his sixth amendment right to confrontation, the defendant does not undertake an analysis to demonstrate that, because he lacked an opportunity to cross-examine Quinde at the probable cause hearing, the admission of the testimony violated his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution. The defendant does not raise a Crawford claim and did not advance arguments of that nature before the trial court. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004). “Under Crawford v. Washington, supra, [68], the hearsay statements of an unavailable witness that are testimonial in nature may be admitted under the sixth amendment’s confrontation clause only if the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. Hearsay statements that are nontestimonial in nature are not governed by the confrontation clause, and their admissibility is governed solely by the rules of evidence.” State v. Slater, 285 Conn. 162, 169-70, 939 A.2d 1105, cert. denied, 553 U.S. 1085, 128 S. Ct. 2885, 171 L. Ed. 2d 822 (2008).


author: Per Curiam.

text:
    DAVID O’SUCH v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 33098)
    Alvord, Espinosa and Bishop, Js.
    Argued September 7
    officially released October 2, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    ERVIN JAMES ET AL. v. JOHN STEINEGGER
    (AC 33091)
    Beach, Alvord and Schaller, Js.
    Argued September 6
    officially released October 2, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. EVERETT O. SMITH
    (AC 33359)
    Bear, Sheldon and West, Js.
    Argued September 11
    officially released October 2, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    TOWN OF LEBANON v. ALLAN RYCHLING ET AL.
    (AC 32716)
    Gruendel, Lavine and Flynn, Js.
    Argued September 10
    officially released October 2, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    ROGER EMERICK v. COMMISSIONER OF PUBLIC HEALTH ET AL.
    (AC 34162)
    Alvord, Bear and Flynn, Js.
    Argued September 24
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    CAESAR O’NEIL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 32764)
    Gruendel, Beach and Sheldon, Js.
    Argued September 21
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    JOHN KEARNEY v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 33595)
    DiPentima, C. X, and Sheldon and Lavery, Js.
    Argued September 19
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    TIBER HOLDING CORPORATION ET AL. v. ANDREW P. DILORETO
    (AC 33715)
    Beach, Alvord and Bear, Js.
    Submitted on briefs September 17
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    ANTHONY FURS v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 33260)
    DiPentima, C. X, and Gruendel and Espinosa, Js.
    Submitted on briefs September 17
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    MICHAEL MCCOY v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 33351)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Gruendel and Bishop, Js.
    Submitted on briefs September 17
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    EDWARD WRIGHT v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 33331)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Gruendel and Espinosa, Js.
    Submitted on briefs September 17
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    MATTHEW J. KWONG v. COMMISSIONER OF MOTOR VEHICLES
    (AC 34127)
    Alvord, Bear and Flynn, Js.
    Argued September 24
    officially released October 9, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed.


text:
    JERRY RODRIGUEZ v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTION
    (AC 32517)
    DiPentima, C. J., and Robinson and Peters, Js.
    Argued September 13
    officially released October 16, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The appeal is dismissed.


text:
    MICHAEL DARCY v. PETURA R. BILLIE
    (AC 33750)
    (AC 34180)
    Lavine, Sheldon and Mihalakos, Js.
    Argued September 25
    officially released October 16, 2012
   Per Curiam.

The judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded for the purpose of setting new law days.


text:
    RICHARD M. GIBBONS v. SUZANNE E. GIBBONS
    (AC 33300)
    DiPentima, C. X, and Robinson and Peters, Js.

      Submitted on briefs September 13
    officially released October 30, 2012

      Nicholas Adamucci filed a brief for the appellant (plaintiff)-.

      James H. Lee and Nancy Aldrich filed a brief for the appellee (defendant).
   Opinion

DiPENTIMA, C. J.

The plaintiff, Richard M. Gibbons, appeals from the judgment of the trial court ordering him to pay the defendant, Suzanne E. Gibbons, child support. On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court abused its discretion in ordering (1) the plaintiff to pay child support when there was no evidence that the minor children were in need of maintenance and (2) a modification to the parenting agreement without proof of a substantial change in the defendant’s circumstances. We are not persuaded by the plaintiffs claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The follawing facts and procedural history, as set forth in the court’s memorandum of decision and supported by the record, are relevant to the resolution of this appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant were divorced on March 29, 2010. They have two minor children who, at the time of the dissolution, were sixteen and nine years old, respectively. Following the dissolution, the plaintiff maintained an office and shared occupancy with the defendant in the marital residence in Westport; the plaintiff and the defendant each also maintained separate residences. The children reside primarily with the defendant at the marital home in Westport.

In the judgment of dissolution, the court incorporated by reference the terms of a written agreement (separation agreement) between the parties dated March 29, 2010. The separation agreement incorporated the parenting plan signed on March 12, 2010 (plan), and stated that the plaintiff and defendant shall have joint custody of the minor children and that, “[b]ecause of shared custody, there shall be no child support . . . .” The plan specified that the defendant would, in “Week One,” have the minor children from “Saturday at noon until Tuesday return to school,” and the plaintiff “shall have parenting time Tuesday after school until Saturday at noon.” In “Week Two,” the plan stated that the defendant “shall have parenting time with the minor children from Friday after school and return to school Tuesday morning,” and that the plaintiff “shall have parenting time with the minor children Tuesday after school until Friday return to school.” The plan stated that “[t]he weeks [one] or [two] shall alternate thereafter.”

Soon after the dissolution, the plaintiff moved to Chicago, Illinois, for employment purposes. For the period between the dissolution and August 25, 2010, the plaintiff and the defendant shared joint custody of their children according to the schedule in the plan. The plaintiffs travel, however, limited the amount of time he was able to spend with the minor children, despite the fact that he commuted to the marital home in West-port on a “frequent basis.” On August 25, 2010, the plaintiff and the defendant filed a new agreement (August, 2010 agreement) altering the terms of custody of their children. Instead of the weekly time the plaintiff spent with the minor children in the original plan, the August, 2010 agreement stated that the plaintiff would have parenting time only every other weekend. The August, 2010 agreement provided for the plaintiff to have additional parenting time “as agreed to by the parties with 48 hours advance notice.”

On August 27, 2010, the defendant filed a “motion for order re: child support order, postjudgment, ” requesting an order of child support following the change in the plaintiffs custodial status. The plaintiff objected to the motion, arguing that he intended to “visit with the minor children for the same amount of time he has been visiting with the children [prior to the August, 2010 agreement].” The court addressed the motion for child support in its January 18, 2011 memorandum of decision, where it ordered the plaintiff to “pay [the] defendant the amount of $273.00 per week retroactive to August 25, 2010.” On February 3, 2011, the plaintiff filed a motion to reargue because “the [c]ourt discredited [the] [pjlaintiff s testimony that he spent more than eight days per month with his children.” The motion was denied, and this appeal followed.

Before we address the plaintiffs specific claims, we set forth our standard of review. “An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s orders [financial or otherwise] in domestic relations cases unless the court has abused its discretion or it is found that it could not reasonably conclude as it did, based on the facts presented. ... In determining whether a trial court has abused its broad discretion in domestic relations matters, we allow every reasonable presumption in favor of the correctness of its action.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dombrowski v. Noyes-Dombrowski, 273 Conn. 127, 132, 869 A.2d 164 (2005).

I

The plaintiff first claims that the court abused its discretion in its postjudgment award of child support to the defendant. The plaintiff specifically argues that the defendant did not provide evidence that the two minor children were in need of maintenance outside of the care and expenses addressed in the separation agreement. The plaintiff contends that, in the absence of such a showing, the court should not have awarded child support. We disagree.

General Statutes § 46b-84, on which the plaintiff bases his argument, provides in relevant part: “(a) Upon or subsequent to the annulment or dissolution of any marriage or the entry of a decree of legal separation or divorce, the parents of a minor child of the marriage, shall maintain the child according to their respective abilities, if the child is in need of maintenance. . . .” Further, “[i]n determining whether a child is in need of maintenance and, if in need, the respective abilities of the parents to provide such maintenance and the amount thereof, the court shall consider the age, health, station, occupation, earning capacity, amount and sources of income, estate, vocational skills and employ-ability of each of the parents, and the age, health, station, occupation, educational status and expectation, amount and sources of income, vocational skills, employability, estate and needs of the child.” General Statutes § 46b-84 (d). Finally, “[a]fter the granting of a decree annulling or dissolving the marriage or ordering a legal separation, and upon complaint or motion with order and summons made to the Superior Court by either parent . . . the court shall inquire into the child’s need of maintenance and the respective abilities of the parents to supply maintenance. The court shall make and enforce the decree for the maintenance of the child as it considers just . . . .” General Statutes § 46b-84 (f) (1).

Although the separation agreement did not provide that either party pay child support, article V of the separation agreement provides that “ [i]n the event there are any custodial changes or a substantial change in income, then child support shall be paid until the children attain the age of eighteen (18) years or in the event the last child has not graduated from high school as of his [eighteenth] birthday, child support shall continue until the last child graduates from high school and attains the age of [nineteen] years, whichever first occurs.” (Emphasis added.) The plaintiff argues that the court abused its discretion in crediting the defendant’s testimony that the plaintiffs time with the minor children was not equal to her own and that she incurred expenses for the minor children to which he did not contribute, over his own testimony that he spent a considerable amount of time with the minor children and provided for them as much as they needed. He argues that the minor children were never denied “clothing, lodging, food and medical attendance” while in either his or the defendant’s custody.

It is the trial court’s role to weigh each party’s testimony. “[T]he trial court has the unique opportunity to view the parties and their testimony, and is therefore in the best position to assess all of the circumstances surrounding a dissolution action, including such factors as the demeanor and the attitude of the parties.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Dombrowski v. Noyes-Dombrowski, supra, 273 Conn. 132. It is not the role of this court to usurp that position.

The plaintiff relies on two cases to support his argument. See Brown v. Brown, 190 Conn. 345, 460 A.2d 1287 (1983); Whitney v. Whitney, 171 Conn. 23, 368 A.2d 96 (1976). This reliance is misplaced. The plaintiff argues that the court erroneously determined that the minor children had a need for maintenance. Whitney and Brown do not discuss whether a minor child needs maintenance, but, rather, address the proportionality of child support to a party’s ability to pay after a need has been established.

The plaintiff is correct that a court must determine whether a minor child is in need before it orders child support, but “[t]he ‘needs of the child’ is a very broad concept which may have some flexibility of meaning depending upon the particular case. . . . ‘[N]eeds’ may . . . include various extras or luxuries depending upon the financial circumstances of the parents, and the lifestyle which had been established.” A. Rutkin et al., 8 Connecticut Practice Series: Family Law and Practice with Forms (2010) § 38:13, p. 302. The language of § 46b-84 requires only that the court consider the factors set out in § 46b-84 (d) in its determination of need. The record reflects that the court did so. On October 4,2010, and October 13, 2010, the court conducted hearings regarding expenses incurred by both parties for the minor children. Both parties submitted financial affidavits detailing their current and expected expenditures. Further, on the basis of the testimony at those hearings and the record, the court found that the plaintiffs lack of response and untimely responses to the defendant forced the defendant to make expenditures for the minor children “out of necessity.” Thus, the court complied with § 46b-84 (d), which provides that the court shall consider factors relating to the parents’ as well as the children’s financial situations. Because the court made its findings on the basis of its consideration of the factors set out in § 46b-84 (d), we conclude that it did not abuse its discretion in awarding child support.

II

We next trun to the plaintiffs claim that the court abused its discretion in modifying the order for child support. Specifically, the plaintiff argues that in order for a court to modify an order for child support, there must be a “substantial change of circumstances uncon-templated at the time the original order was entered.” (Emphasis added.) We disagree.

The plaintiff misstates the current law on the modification of custody orders. He relies on law requiring a substantial change uncontemplated at the time of the dissolution judgment. In so relying, the plaintiff claims that the defendant did not demonstrate “a substantial change in circumstances that were not contemplated at the time the order was entered back in March, 2010.” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes (Rev. to 1987) § 46b-86 (a) in its current form, however, does not support this contention. It provides in relevant part that “[ajfter the date of judgment, modification of any child support order issued before, on or after July 1, 1990, may be made upon a showing of such substantial change of circumstances, whether or not such change of circumstances was contemplated at the time of dissolution. . . .” (Emphasis added.) General Statutes § 46b-86 (a).

The plaintiff erroneously relies on Kelepecz v. Kelepecz, 187 Conn. 537, 447 A.2d 8 (1982). Kelepecz employs § 46b-86 (a) as it was decided in 1982. See id., 538. However, Kelepecz was superseded by statute in 1987, when “Public Acts 1987, No. 87-104, eliminated the requirement in § 46b-86 that modification of alimony or support be based on uncontemplated changes of circumstances.” Berry v. Berry, 88 Conn. App. 674, 678, 870 A.2d 1161 (2005). Pursuant to the current language of § 46b-86 (a), and contrary to the statutory language applicable in Kelepecz, it was within the court’s discretion to modify its order of child support once it found that the plaintiff only had parenting time with the minor children every other weekend and not weekly, as was originally set forth at the time of the dissolution judgment. Thus, whether the change in the plaintiffs parenting time was contemplated at the time of the dissolution judgment is irrelevant. It was within the court’s discretion to modify the order for support and require the plaintiff to pay child support in the amount of $273 per week.

The judgment is affirmed.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

       The court appointed attorney Janis M. Laliberte of Sullivan & Laliberte, LLC, as guardian ad litem on August 13, 2009. Further, attorney Margarita Hartley Moore filed an appearance as the attorney for the minor children on May 29, 2012. After consultation with Laliberte, Moore filed a letter stating that she adopted the defendant’s brief in this appeal.

       The plaintiff indicated in his October 4,2010 testimony that he “partially” moved to Chicago on April 1, 2010.

       The court also made findings related to the defendant’s motion for contempt regarding the purchase price of and payments related to the marital home. These findings are not relevant to this appeal.

       We note a scrivener’s error in the plaintiffs brief. The plaintiff cites to § 46b-84 (c) when describing the factors for a court’s determination of a minor child’s need for maintenance. Section 46b-84 (c) relates to the court’s order of support for a child with mental retardation or a mental or physical disability. The factors for a court’s determination of a minor child’s need for maintenance are found in § 46b-84 (d).

       For example, the court distinguished between expenses for baby-sitting and other “child related expenses.” The court determined that $6000 in baby-sitting fees was not supported by the separation agreement.