Opinion

PALMER, J.

A jury convicted the defendant, Kevin King, of one count each of capital felony in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-54b (5) and (7), as amended by Public Acts 1992, No. 92-260, § 27, murder in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-54a, as amended by Public Acts 1992, No. 92-260, § 26, and General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-8, as amended by Public Acts, Spec. Sess., June, 1992, No. 92-2, felony murder in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-54c, as amended by Public Acts 1992, No. 92-260, § 28, sexual assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-70, as amended by Public Acts 1992, No. 92-87, § 3, and § 53a-8 and burglary in the second degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-102, and two counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53-21 and § 53a-8. The state sought imposition of the death penalty on the capital felony count, and the trial court conducted a separate sentencing hearing, pursuant to General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-46a, before the same jury. The jury rendered a special verdict finding that the state had established an aggravating factor and that the defendant had proven a mitigating factor. The trial court rendered its judgment of conviction in accordance with the jury verdict, and, as required by § 53a-46a (f), imposed a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release on the capital felony count. The trial court also sentenced the defendant to ten years imprisonment on each of the second degree burglary and risk of injury to a child counts, those sentences to run consecutively to one another and to the defendant's sentence on the capital felony count, for a total effective sentence of life in prison without the possibility of release, plus thirty years.

On appeal, the defendant contends that the trial court improperly: (1) rejected the defendant's claim that the state, during jury selection, had exercised its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner; (2) excluded certain evidence in violation of the defendant's right to present a defense as guaranteed by the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution; (3) restricted the defendant's cross-examination of one of the state's witnesses in violation of the rules of evidence and the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment; (4) failed to instruct the jury that it could not convict the defendant of capital felony under § 53a-54b (5) unless the state proved that the defendant had held the victim for ransom; and (5) imposed consecutive prison terms on the capital felony count and on the second degree burglary and risk of injury to a child counts. We reject each of these claims and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The evidence adduced at trial revealed the following facts. In December, 1992, Gryzna Urbanski resided at 207 Winfield Drive in New Britain with her two daughters, Patricia (victim), who was fifteen years old at that time, and Justyna, who was two months shy of three years old. At approximately 8 p.m. on December 20, 1992, Gryzna, who worked the night shift, left for work. The victim remained at home to care for Justyna.

At some time after 4 a.m. on December 21, neighbors of the Urbanskis were awakened by screams and the sound of a young child crying. Neighbors saw a light go on on the second floor of the Urbanski home, and observed, through the second story window, the silhouette of a person moving about. The light went out shortly thereafter. Neighbors also observed a dark red Volkswagen Jetta (Jetta) parked near the Urbanski home.

The neighbors then saw an individual inside the Urbanski home push out the screen of a second story window, toss a duffel bag out the window and jump to the ground. The individual, who was described as being approximately five feet, five inches tall and slight of build, was wearing a ski mask, dark clothes and boots, and appeared to be wearing gloves. Neighbors began converging on the scene, and the intruder, who had been running in the direction of the Jetta, changed direction to elude them. One of the neighbors flung a baseball bat at the fleeing intruder, striking him on the leg. The intruder nevertheless managed to escape.

Shortly thereafter, Officer Peter Sheldrick of the New Britain police department was dispatched to the Urbanski home. When Sheldrick arrived, he found the front and rear doors locked. He observed, however, that a basement window was missing and that a metal window frame was lying on the ground nearby. Sheldrick entered the residence through the missing window and proceeded to the first floor, where he was joined by a second police officer, Bernard Moreno. Sheldrick and Moreno then proceeded to the second floor, where they first entered Justyna's bedroom and found her in bed, awake and crying. They then proceeded to a second bedroom and forced open the door, which had been braced shut from inside the bedroom with a large piece of furniture. Upon entering the bedroom, the officers found the victim lying face down on the bed, wearing only a nightshirt that had been lifted above her hips, with a piece of duct tape over her mouth. She was unresponsive and bleeding from various wounds.

Sheldrick called an ambulance and, at approximately 5 a.m., the victim was taken to a hospital, where, after undergoing emergency surgery, she died several hours later. An autopsy revealed hemorrhaging from the superficial vessels in her head and cheeks, indicating that she had been strangled. She also had suffered cuts and abrasions on her neck and hands, stab wounds to her face and body, at least one of which had pierced her heart, and blunt force trauma injuries to her head and torso.

An investigation by the police revealed that the Jetta parked near the Urbanski home was owned by Cari Standish, the defendant's girlfriend. When the police discovered the Jetta shortly after the murder, its engine was still warm.

Standish was interviewed by the police, and explained that she had arrived at the defendant's home at 100 Pentlow Avenue in New Britain at approximately 11:30 p.m. on December 20, 1992. She parked her Jetta in front of the defendant's home and locked it. She and the defendant went to bed at about 1:30 a.m. on December 21.

When Standish awoke at approximately 6:20 a.m. on December 21, the defendant was asleep in bed beside her. Standish noticed, however, that the Jetta was no longer where she had parked it. Standish then telephoned her mother, who informed her that the police had her car and wanted to speak to her. Standish asked the defendant if he knew anything about the Jetta's whereabouts, because he had a key to the vehicle and permission from Standish to use it. The defendant acknowledged that he had taken the Jetta during the night, and that he and a friend had broken into a house, intending to burglarize it. The defendant further stated that, while they were on the second floor, an occupant emerged from a room, saw them and screamed. According to the defendant, his friend then stabbed the occupant in the neck with a pocket knife.

The police recovered a ski mask and a pair of blood-stained gloves in the parking lot of a housing complex located along the route a person would take if traveling on foot from the Urbanski home to the defendant's home. Witnesses testified that the defendant often wore a ski mask similar to the one found near the housing complex; they also identified the blood-stained gloves as those of the defendant. DNA analysis of the blood on the gloves established that it matched the victim's blood. In addition, the defendant's height and build matched the physical description of the fleeing masked intruder that the Urbanskis' neighbors had given to the police.

The police learned that the defendant had been introduced to the victim by a mutual friend, Timothy Prevo, in early December, 1992, when Prevo and the defendant visited the victim at her home. During that visit, the defendant observed the layout of the Urbanski home, along with its contents, which included a stereo and a large television set. The defendant also learned of Gryzna Urbanski's work schedule. After their visit to the victim's home, the defendant and Prevo spoke to the victim on the telephone several times. The calls ceased, however, shortly before December 10, 1992, when Prevo left the state to join the United States Navy.

After the defendant's arrest, the police executed a search warrant that had been obtained for his home, and seized some clothing that they found in the washing machine. Forensic tests revealed that a piece of acrylic fiber found on one of the pillows at the Urbanski home was similar to a fiber that had been taken from a sweatshirt that the police had seized from the defendant's washing machine.

The police also obtained a search warrant for samples of the defendant's bodily fluids. The warrant was executed at New Britain General Hospital, where medical personnel observed fresh scratch marks on the defendant's shoulder and chest. DNA analysis of a sample of seminal fluid that had been taken from the victim's vagina indicated that it could have come from only 1 percent of the population, including the defendant. Furthermore, human hairs found on the ski mask were similar to hair samples taken from both the victim's body and the defendant.

In addition, the defendant contacted Standish while the defendant was in custody and confided in her that Justyna had witnessed the victim's murder. The defendant also told Standish that he could gain an acquittal only by claiming that he had been overcome by rage. Finally, Daniel Begley, a prison official, overheard the defendant on the telephone explaining that Justyna had witnessed the crime, and that she would remember it for the rest of her life. Thereafter, the defendant asked Begley if Begley knew what would happen to him "for what I've done." Additional facts will be set forth as necessary.

I

The defendant first claims that the state violated his rights under the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution by exercising three of its peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. We disagree.

Before analyzing the defendant's claims with respect to each of the three challenged venirepersons, we first summarize the applicable law. "In Batson [v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69 (1986),] the United States Supreme Court recognized that a claim of purposeful racial discrimination on the part of the prosecution in selecting a jury raises constitutional questions of the utmost seriousness, not only for the integrity of a particular trial but also for the perceived fairness of the judicial system as a whole. . . . The court concluded that [a]lthough a prosecutor ordinarily is entitled to exercise permitted peremptory challenges for any reason at all, as long as that reason is related to his [or her] view concerning the outcome of the case to be tried . . . the Equal Protection Clause forbids the prosecutor to challenge potential jurors solely on account of their race. . . . State v. Robinson, [ 237 Conn. 238, 243-44, 676 A.2d 384 (1996)]. Relying on the rationale underlying Batson, the United States Supreme Court has held that gender-based challenges also are impermissible. J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T.B., [ 511 U.S. 127, 146, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994)].

"Under Connecticut law, [o]nce a [party] asserts a Batson claim, the [opposing party] must advance a neutral explanation for the venireperson's removal. . . . The [party asserting the Batson claim] is then afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that the [opposing party's] articulated reasons are insufficient or pretextual. . . . [T]he trial court then [has] the duty to determine if the [party asserting the Batson claim] has established purposeful discrimination. . . . The [party asserting the Batson claim] carries the ultimate burden of persuading the trial court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the jury selection process in his or her particular case was tainted by purposeful discrimination. . . .

"We have identified several specific factors that may indicate that [a party's removal] of a venireperson through a peremptory challenge was . . . motivated [by race or gender]. These include, but are not limited to: (1) [t]he reasons given for the challenge were not related to the trial of the case . . . (2) the [party exercising the peremptory strike] failed to question the challenged juror or only questioned him or her in a perfunctory manner . . . (3) prospective jurors of one race [or gender] were asked a question to elicit a particular response that was not asked of the other jurors . . . (4) persons with the same or similar characteristics but not the same race [or gender] as the challenged juror were not struck . . . (5) the [party exercising the peremptory strike] advanced an explanation based on a group bias where the group trait is not shown to apply to the challenged juror specifically . . . and (6) the [party exercising the peremptory strike] used a disproportionate number of peremptory challenges to exclude members of one race [or gender]. . . .

"In assessing the reasons proffered in support of the use of a peremptory challenge . . . [a]n explanation . . . need not . . . be pigeon-holed as wholly acceptable or wholly unacceptable . . . and even where the acceptability of a particular explanation is doubtful, the inquiry is not at an end. In deciding the ultimate issue of discriminatory intent, the judicial officer is entitled to assess each explanation in light of all the other evidence relevant to prosecutorial intent. The officer may think a dubious explanation undermines the bona fides of other explanations or may think that the sound explanations dispel the doubt raised by a questionable one. As with most inquiries into state of mind, the ultimate determination depends on an aggregate assessment of all the circumstances. . . . United States v. Alvarado, [ 951 F.2d 22, 26 (2d Cir. 1991)]. . . .

"Finally, the trial court's decision on the question of discriminatory intent represents a finding of fact that will necessarily turn on the court's evaluation of the demeanor and credibility of the attorney of the party exercising the peremptory challenge. Hernandez v. New York, 500 U.S. 352, 365, 111 S.Ct. 1859, 114 L.Ed.2d 395 (1991); Batson v. Kentucky, supra, 476 U.S. 98 n. 21; United States v. Alvarado, supra, 951 F.2d 25; State v. Gonzalez, [ 206 Conn. 391, 395, 538 A.2d 210 (1988)]. Accordingly, a trial court's determination that there has or has not been intentional discrimination is afforded great deference and will not be disturbed unless it is clearly erroneous. State v. Hinton, [ 227 Conn. 301, 323-24, 630 A.2d 593 (1993)]; see State v. Gonzalez, supra, 406-407. A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when there is no evidence in the record to support it . . . or when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hodge, 248 Conn. 207, 218-24, 726 A.2d 531 (1999).

With these principles in mind, we now turn to the defendant's contention that, contrary to the finding of the trial court, the state purposefully discriminated on the basis of race in using its peremptory challenges to strike three minority venirepersons from the jury panel. We reject the defendant's claim with respect to each of the challenged venirepersons.

A Venireperson B.G.

After the voir dire of venireperson B.G., an African-American female, the state exercised a peremptory challenge to strike her from the jury panel. The defendant raised an objection under Batson/ Holloway; see footnote 18 of this opinion; and, in accordance therewith, the trial court instructed the prosecutor to explain his reasons for striking B.G. The prosecutor stated that he had based his decision on the fact that B.G. had indicated that she was strongly opposed to the death penalty. In particular, B.G. had stated that she "[did not] believe in the death penalty," and that she had held that view "all [her] life." She also indicated that she did not feel that the imposition of the death penalty is a fit and moral function of government, that she was "totally in opposition" to our death penalty statute and that she "would [vote to] eliminate it" if she were a legislator. Although B.G. had indicated that she could and would follow the court's instructions regarding the death penalty, and that she would not let her personal views interfere with her responsibilities as a juror, she also had indicated that she was not certain that she wanted to sit on a capital felony case in light of her opposition to the death penalty. Finally, when asked by the state whether she knew of any case in which the death penalty had been "appropriately imposed," B.G. stated that she was not aware of any such case.

After the prosecutor had explained his reasons for exercising the peremptory challenge, the trial court asked defense counsel if he wished to be heard. Defense counsel indicated that he had nothing further to add. The trial court, noting that B.G. had "obviously agonize[d] over the death penalty questions" and candidly had acknowledged that it would be difficult for her to participate in a capital felony case, concluded that the prosecutor's explanation for the peremptory challenge was "believable and forthright and justified in the record."

The defendant concedes that a prosecutor may strike a venireperson whom the prosecutor reasonably believes will be unable to follow the court's instructions concerning the sentencing phase of a capital felony case, even if that venireperson's answers do not justify a challenge for cause. The defendant nevertheless claims that, because B.G. stated that she would apply the law as instructed irrespective of her strongly held views against the death penalty, the trial court improperly concluded that the explanation proffered by the prosecutor was not pretextual. We reject the defendant's argument.

"Once the state met its burden of producing a race-neutral explanation, it was incumbent upon the defendant to persuade the trial court that the state's reasons were insufficient or pretextual. To have done so, the defendant could have advanced reasons that are salient to a showing of pretext." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Beltran, 246 Conn. 268, 280, 717 A.2d 168 (1998). The defendant's failure to provide the trial court with such reasons may be treated as acquiescence in the validity of the prosecutor's explanation. Id.; see also United States v. Arce, 997 F.2d 1123, 1126-27 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Rudas, 905 F.2d 38, 41 (2d Cir. 1990). The record, moreover, fully supports the trial court's conclusion that, notwithstanding B.G.'s expressed willingness to follow the court's instructions, her responses gave rise to a legitimate concern that she would have difficulty putting aside her strong opposition to the death penalty in evaluating the evidence and, ultimately, in considering the claimed aggravating and mitigating factors. The defendant, therefore, has not demonstrated that the trial court's finding on this issue was clearly erroneous. Accordingly, the defendant cannot prevail on his claim that the state's exclusion of B.G. was improper.

B Venireperson R.R.

The state exercised another peremptory challenge against venireperson R.R., a Hispanic male. R.R., a teacher, also described himself as an "extraordinary eucharistic minister" of the Roman Catholic faith. He stated that he was opposed to the death penalty for several reasons. In particular, he explained that capital punishment is contrary to the teachings of his church, that only God has the right to take a life, that it does not serve as a deterrent and that the economic cost of implementing the death penalty cannot be justified. Although R.R. stated that he would follow the court's instructions on the death penalty notwithstanding his own personal beliefs, he also expressed reservations as to whether the sanction of death was morally proper.

The defendant raised a Batson/ Holloway objection to the state's exercise of a peremptory challenge against R.R., and, in response, the prosecutor defended his decision on the basis of R.R.'s strong personal and religious opposition to the death penalty. The trial court asked defense counsel whether he wished to explain why, in his view, the prosecutor's reasons were pretextual. Defense counsel stated that he did not.

The defendant's claim concerning the state's allegedly racially discriminatory strike of R.R. is identical in all material respects to his contention that the state improperly exercised a peremptory challenge against B.G. See part I A of this opinion. For the same reasons that we rejected the defendant's claim regarding the state's allegedly improper exercise of a peremptory challenge against B.G., we reject the defendant's claim with respect to the state's exclusion of R.R.

C Venireperson A.R.

Finally, the defendant asserts that the trial court's conclusion that the state did not exclude venireperson A.R., an African-American male, on the basis of A.R.'s race was clearly erroneous. This claim also is without merit.

During voir dire, A.R. stated his belief that African-American defendants often receive more severe sentences than white defendants for the same crimes. A.R. also expressed concern that African-American defendants are more likely to be sentenced to death than white defendants. In response to a posed hypothetical situation in which the state was constrained to drop a sexual assault charge because the rapist's confession had been obtained illegally, A.R. indicated that he would be more troubled by the fact that the confession had been the product of illegality than by the fact that a guilty person had been set free. A.R. also stated that he had applied for positions with the Windsor police department and the Connecticut state police, but that he had been rejected for both positions. In addition, A.R. had failed to note his rejection from the state police on his juror questionnaire. A.R. further indicated that he was not in favor of the death penalty, primarily because of the possibility that an innocent person might be put to death.

The prosecutor relied on these responses in explaining why he had decided to strike A.R. from the panel. Specifically, the prosecutor stated that he was concerned that A.R.'s views about the unfairness of certain aspects of the criminal justice system might influence his ability to remain completely impartial. The prosecutor also indicated that he intended to call as witnesses several persons employed by the Connecticut state police, and that A.R.'s failure to obtain a position with that agency could affect his objectivity with respect to the testimony of those employees. Finally, the prosecutor expressed serious concerns about A.R.'s opposition to the death penalty, asserting that A.R.'s fear that an innocent person might be sentenced to death could prompt him to favor the defendant over the state.

The defendant claimed that these reasons were insufficient to establish a legitimate, nonracial basis for the state's exercise of a peremptory challenge against A.R. In particular, defense counsel maintained that the views expressed by A.R. could not reasonably have been interpreted as adverse to the state's interest in seating a neutral and objective jury.

After hearing from the parties, the trial court stated that, although one might conclude from A.R.'s responses that he could be fair to both the state and the defendant, one also could infer from his answers that A.R.'s personal views might adversely affect his ability to be completely fair to the state. The trial court found, therefore, that the state's exercise of a peremptory challenge against A.R. was not motivated by discriminatory considerations.

We agree with the state that the trial court's rejection of the defendant's claim that the prosecutor's reasons for striking A.R. were pretextual was not clearly erroneous. First, the prosecutor understandably was troubled by A.R.'s predisposition against the death penalty. Second, it was reasonable for the prosecutor to conclude that A.R.'s concerns about the fairness of the criminal justice system might make it difficult for him to view the state's case with complete objectivity. See State v. Hinton, supra, 227 Conn. 327 (distrust of judicial system's treatment of minority defendants may be valid consideration in evaluating suitability of venireperson). Finally, the fact that A.R.'s employment applications to two law enforcement agencies had been rejected gave rise to a legitimate concern that he might harbor some resentment toward the police and the prosecuting authorities. We are satisfied, therefore, that the record supports our conclusion that the trial court's determination that the state did not strike A.R. on account of his race was not clearly erroneous.

II

The defendant next contends that two evidentiary rulings by the trial court violated his right to present a defense guaranteed by the compulsory process clause of the sixth amendment to the federal constitution. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly precluded him from introducing into evidence: (1) the testimony of a New Britain police officer that the victim's two and one-half year old sister, Justyna, had failed to respond when shown a photographic array that included a photograph of the defendant; and (2) a pair of sneakers that the police had seized from the defendant pursuant to a search warrant. We reject these claims.

Before addressing the defendant's claims, we first summarize the law that governs our analysis. "The sixth amendment right to compulsory process includes the right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary, [and] is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so that it may decide where the truth lies." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Carter, 228 Conn. 412, 422, 636 A.2d 821 (1994). "When defense evidence is excluded, such exclusion may give rise to a claim of denial of the right to present a defense. . . . A defendant is, however, bound by the rules of evidence in presenting a defense. . . . Although exclusionary rules of evidence cannot be applied 'mechanistically' to deprive a defendant of his rights, the constitution does not require that a defendant be permitted to present every piece of evidence he wishes. . . . If the proffered evidence is not relevant, the defendant's right to confrontation is not affected, and the evidence was properly excluded." (Citations omitted.) State v. Christiano, 228 Conn. 456, 474, 637 A.2d 382, cert. denied, 513 U.S. 821, 115 S.Ct. 83, 130 L.Ed.2d 36 (1994); accord State v. Bova, 240 Conn. 210, 236, 690 A.2d 1370 (1997).

"Relevant evidence is evidence that has a logical tendency to aid the trier in the determination of an issue. . . . One fact is relevant to another if in the common course of events the existence of one, alone or with other facts, renders the existence of the other either more certain or more probable. . . . Evidence is irrelevant or too remote if there is such a want of open and visible connection between the evidentiary and principal facts that, all things considered, the former is not worthy or safe to be admitted in the proof of the latter. . . . A party is not required to offer such proof of a fact that it excludes all other hypotheses; it is sufficient if the evidence tends to make the existence or nonexistence of any other fact more probable or less probable than it would be without such evidence. . . . Evidence is not rendered inadmissible because it is not conclusive. All that is required is that the evidence tend to support a relevant fact even to a slight degree, so long as it is not prejudicial or merely cumulative." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 305, 664 A.2d 743 (1995).

Finally, "[t]he trial court's ruling on the admissibility of evidence is entitled to great deference. . . . [T]he trial court has broad discretion in ruling on the admissibility . . . of evidence. . . . 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." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hines, 243 Conn. 796, 801, 709 A.2d 522 (1998). We now address each of the defendant's claims in turn.

A

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly excluded testimony from Officer Stanley Masternak of the New Britain police department that, shortly after the homicide, he had shown the victim's sister, Justyna, a photographic array of eight white males, including one of the defendant, and that Justyna had failed to respond when Masternak asked her whether she saw the perpetrator in the array. The defendant claimed that Masternak's testimony was relevant to establish that Justyna had failed to identify the defendant as the perpetrator. The trial court excluded the testimony on hearsay grounds.

"A statement made out-of-court that is offered to establish the truth of the matter contained in the statement is hearsay, and as such is inadmissible." State v. Blades, 225 Conn. 609, 632, 626 A.2d 273 (1993). Nonverbal conduct may also be hearsay if intended as an assertion. "If the conduct is assertive in nature, that is, meant to be a communication — like the nodding or shaking of the head in answer to a question — it is treated as a statement, and the hearsay rule applies." C. Tait J. LaPlante, Connecticut Evidence (2d Ed. 1988) § 11.2, p. 319; see also State v. Blades, supra, 632. However, conduct not intended as an assertion is not hearsay. State v. Blades, supra, 633. Thus, "[n]onassertive conduct such as running to hide, or shaking and trembling, is not hearsay." State v. Thomas, 205 Conn. 279, 285, 533 A.2d 553 (1987); cf. State v. McCarthy, 197 Conn. 166, 173, 496 A.2d 190 (1985).

After defense counsel had proffered Masternak's testimony, the state objected to its admission on the ground that, because defense counsel sought to treat Justyna's silence as an assertion that she could not identify the defendant, third party testimony regarding Justyna's out-of-court silence was inadmissible hearsay. In response, defense counsel maintained that Justyna's silence was nonassertive conduct and, consequently, not hearsay. The trial court rejected defense counsel's argument, concluding that, because defense counsel was seeking to use Masternak's testimony to prove that Justyna could not identify the defendant, her silence was the equivalent of a nonverbal assertion that the perpetrator was not in the photographic array and, consequently, her silence was hearsay. The trial court also concluded, in the alternative, that if Justyna's silence was nonassertive conduct, it was irrelevant. Finally, the trial court noted the questionable trustworthiness of Justyna's reaction in light of her tender age and the day's traumatic events, and, furthermore, that "her actions [could] be explained a number of ways."

On appeal, the defendant seeks to amplify the argument that defense counsel made in the trial court. Specifically, he claims that the proffered evidence regarding Justyna's failure to respond to Masternak's inquiry was nonassertive conduct and, therefore, not hearsay, because if Justyna had recognized the defendant in the photographic array, she likely would have exhibited fear or distress. The defendant contends that the fact that Justyna did not react in such a manner suggests that she did not recognize the defendant when she was shown the photographic array.

At trial, defense counsel labeled Justyna's conduct as nonassertive, but then acknowledged that the proffered testimony was admissible only to establish that Justyna had failed to identify the defendant in the photographic array. At no time did defense counsel state, as the basis for this claim, that Justyna's reaction was admissible as nonassertive conduct because she had not exhibited any fear upon being shown the array. Thus, as defense counsel articulated the claim to the trial court, he was seeking to use Justyna's silence as a nonverbal assertion or statement. In view of the manner in which defense counsel characterized the claim, the trial court properly rejected Masternak's testimony as inadmissible hearsay.

On appeal, the defendant claims that Justyna's failure to exhibit any fear or other emotion upon viewing the photographic array was nonassertive conduct and, therefore, was admissible to establish that Justyna had not identified the perpetrator as one of the persons in the array. The defendant further claims that his inability to present Masternak's testimony regarding Justyna's reaction to the array violated his right to present a defense because it adversely affected his ability to establish that he was at home, asleep with his girlfriend, Standish, when the victim was killed. We disagree.

Although Justyna apparently was home when the intruder entered and killed the victim, no evidence was adduced to establish that Justyna saw the perpetrator's face. Indeed, the evidence established that the perpetrator emerged from the Urbanski home wearing a ski mask, and there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that he had taken off the mask while he was in the house. Moreover, the trial court reasonably concluded that, under the circumstances — which included Justyna's young age and the horrifying events of the day — her failure to react, either to the photographic array or to Masternak's questioning, was too ambiguous a response to warrant its admission into evidence. See State v. Vitale, 197 Conn. 396, 405, 497 A.2d 956 (1985) (where silence is offered as nonassertive conduct, such evidence is inadmissible unless it is "a reliable indicator of what the [proffering party] claims it tended to communicate"); C. Tait J. LaPlante, supra, § 11.2, pp. 320-21 (nonassertive conduct admissible as nonhearsay only if court is satisfied that conduct in question is sufficiently probative and trustworthy).

Even if we were to assume, arguendo, that the defendant had a sixth amendment right to present Masternak's testimony, its exclusion was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence against the defendant was overwhelming. He admitted to his girlfriend, Standish, that he had participated in a burglary that night, DNA evidence linked him to the crime scene and to the bloody gloves, Standish's car was discovered near the Urbanski home, the defendant was the same height and build as the masked intruder described by the Urbanskis' neighbors and the defendant had been to the Urbanski home and knew the victim. Furthermore, as discussed previously, there has been no showing that Justyna ever saw the intruder's face. In light of this fact, and in view of Justyna's age and the tragic circumstances under which she was questioned about the photographic array, it is not reasonably possible that evidence of Justyna's failure to react to the photographic array would have had any bearing on the jury's deliberations. Accordingly, we reject the defendant's claim that he is entitled to a new trial because the trial court precluded him from eliciting Masternak's testimony concerning Justyna's response to the photographic array.

B

The defendant next contends that the trial court improperly prohibited him from introducing into evidence a pair of sneakers that had been seized from the defendant after his arrest on the day of the murder. We disagree.

The following additional facts are relevant to our resolution of this claim. When investigating officers entered the basement of the Urbanski home, they discovered a piece of plexiglass lying near the missing basement window through which the perpetrator apparently had gained entry to the premises. Inspection of the plexiglass revealed a partial shoe print. Kenneth Zercie, a footwear imprint examiner, testified that the print on the plexiglass was from the toe area of a boot with a trapezoid sole pattern. Sheldrick, the first police officer to enter the basement after the crime, testified that he had not stepped on or otherwise touched the plexiglass. Zercie, however, could not exclude as the source of the shoe print the size twelve boots that Sheldrick had been wearing when he entered the Urbanski home.

The defendant was taken into custody at approximately 6:45 a.m. on December 21, 1992. Sergeant Thomas Marino of the New Britain police department testified that a search warrant had been obtained for the defendant's person and, at approximately 2:45 p.m. that day, the police seized the pair of size eight sneakers the defendant had been wearing at that time.

The defendant sought to introduce into evidence those size eight sneakers, claiming that they were relevant as proof that the imprint on the plexiglass could not have been made by footwear as small as a size eight. The state objected to the admission of the sneakers on relevancy grounds, and the trial court sustained the state's objection.

We agree with the state that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the defendant had failed to establish the relevancy of the sneakers. The state never claimed that the shoe print on the piece of plexiglass had come from a sneaker. Zercie, the defendant's expert, testified that the impression likely had been left by a boot. Moreover, in light of Marino's testimony that the police had seized the pair of size eight sneakers that the defendant had been wearing following his arrest, we do not see how the defendant possibly could have been harmed by the trial court's exclusion of the footwear. Accordingly, the defendant's claim is without merit.

III

The defendant next contends that the trial court abused its discretion in restricting his cross-examination of Prevo. The defendant maintains that the trial court's ruling violated the rules of evidence and his rights under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment to the United States constitution. We are not persuaded.

The following additional facts are relevant to the defendant's claim. On direct examination, Prevo testified that he and the defendant had visited the victim at her home on one occasion and, thereafter, had spoken to the victim on the telephone several times. Prevo also testified that, during one such telephone call, he had heard the defendant ask the victim if she had a boyfriend. On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Prevo if he had had an "intimate relationship" with the victim. The state objected to the question on relevancy grounds. The defendant claimed that the information was relevant to demonstrate that Prevo was lying when he stated that the defendant had asked the victim if she had a boyfriend. The trial court then allowed defense counsel to conduct a voir dire examination of Prevo out of the jury's presence.

On voir dire, Prevo testified that he had known the victim for about one month before leaving the state for military duty on December 10, 1992. He also stated that he had spoken frequently to the victim on the telephone, that he had been to her house on two occasions prior to the time that the defendant accompanied him there and that he and the victim "were just friends." Prevo further testified that he had told the defendant that he had had sex with the victim, but denied telling the defendant anything to indicate that she was his girlfriend or that the victim considered him to be more than a casual acquaintance.

Defense counsel argued that he was entitled to apprise the jury that Prevo had acknowledged having sex with the victim. According to defense counsel, Prevo's statement to the defendant regarding his alleged sexual liaison with the victim cast doubt on Prevo's earlier statement that he had overheard the defendant ask the victim if she had a boyfriend. Specifically, defense counsel claimed that it is unlikely that the defendant would have asked the victim such a question if Prevo had told him that he, Prevo, had had sex with the victim. The trial court sustained the state's objection to defense counsel's inquiry as to whether Prevo and the victim had been intimate.

"The sixth amendment to the [United States] constitution guarantees the right of an accused in a criminal prosecution to confront the witnesses against him. . . . The primary interest secured by confrontation is the right to cross-examination . . . and an important function of cross-examination is the exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying. . . . Cross-examination to elicit facts tending to show motive, interest, bias and prejudice is a matter of right and may not be unduly restricted. . . . However, [t]he [c]onfrontation [c]lause guarantees only an opportunity for effective cross-examination, not cross-examination that is effective in whatever way, and to whatever extent, the defense might wish. . . . Thus, [t]he confrontation clause does not . . . suspend the rules of evidence to give the defendant the right to engage in unrestricted cross-examination. . . . Only relevant evidence may be elicited through cross-examination. . . . The court determines whether the evidence sought on cross-examination is relevant by determining whether that evidence renders the existence of [other facts] either certain or more probable. . . . [Furthermore, the] trial court has wide discretion to determine the relevancy of evidence and the scope of cross-examination. Every reasonable presumption should be made in favor of the correctness of the court's ruling in determining whether there has been an abuse of discretion. . . . [Finally, the] proffering party bears the burden of establishing the relevance of the offered testimony." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Andrews, 248 Conn. 1, 11, 726 A.2d 104 (1999); see also State v. Lee, 229 Conn. 60, 70, 640 A.2d 553 (1994) (trial court has wide latitude to place reasonable limits on such cross-examination "based on concerns about . . . harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant" [internal quotation marks omitted]).

We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in prohibiting the defendant from questioning Prevo as to whether he ever had been intimate with the victim. The trial court reasonably determined that there was nothing inherently contradictory about Prevo's testimony that he had overheard the defendant ask the victim whether she had a boyfriend, on the one hand, and Prevo's testimony during defense counsel's voir dire examination that he had told the defendant that he had had sex with the victim, on the other hand. Moreover, the record does not reveal whether Prevo told the defendant of his alleged sexual encounter with the victim before or after the defendant had asked the victim whether she had a boyfriend. It simply does not follow, therefore, that, as the defendant claims, he likely would not have inquired of the victim, in a casual telephone conversation, whether she had a boyfriend, because, at some point, Prevo informed the defendant that he had had sex with the victim.

Even if the defendant's inquiry bore some slight relevance to Prevo's credibility, the issue of whether the defendant had asked the victim about a boyfriend was hardly a central issue in the case, a fact that the trial court was entitled to consider in determining whether to allow the defendant to pursue that line of inquiry. Furthermore, the trial court did not otherwise limit the defendant's opportunity to cross-examine Prevo, whose testimony regarding the defendant's prior contacts with the victim never was seriously contested by the defendant. Indeed, despite the latitude afforded the defendant to show that Prevo's testimony may have been the product of bias, prejudice or self-interest, the defendant has failed to identify any reason why Prevo would have been motivated to lie about the substance of the defendant's telephone conversations with the victim or, for that matter, about anything else. Thus, even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the defendant should have been allowed to elicit testimony from Prevo that the defendant was aware of his claim that he had had sex with the victim, that fact was of such slight relevance as to any issue in the case that the defendant's inability to use it for impeachment purposes could not possibly have been harmful. Accordingly, we reject the defendant's argument that he is entitled to a new trial because the court restricted his cross-examination of Prevo.

IV

The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on kidnap-murder under § 53a-54b (5). See footnote 1 of this opinion. Specifically, the defendant, relying primarily on comments made by several legislators during the course of the floor debate over Public Acts 1973, No. 73-137, § 3 (P.A. 73-137), which was subsequently codified at General Statutes (Rev. to 1975) § 53a-54b, maintains that the state was required to prove that the defendant had demanded the payment of ransom in connection with the victim's kidnapping. Because the trial court rejected the defendant's request for a jury instruction regarding the requirement of a demand for ransom, the defendant claims a violation of his due process right to a properly instructed jury. This claim is without merit.

Our analysis of the defendant's claim "is governed by well established principles of statutory construction. Statutory construction is a question of law and therefore our review is plenary. . . . [O]ur fundamental objective is to ascertain and give effect to the apparent intent of the legislature. . . . In seeking to discern that intent, we look to the words of the statute itself, to the legislative history and circumstances surrounding its enactment, to the legislative policy it was designed to implement, and to its relationship to existing legislation and common law principles governing the same general subject matter. . . . Several additional tenets of statutory construction guide our interpretation of a penal statute. First, we must take care not to impose criminal liability where the legislature has not expressly so intended. . . . Second, [c]riminal statutes are not to be read more broadly than their language plainly requires and ambiguities are ordinarily to be resolved in favor of the defendant. . . . Finally, unless a contrary interpretation would frustrate an evident legislative intent, criminal statutes are governed by the fundamental principle that such statutes are strictly construed against the state." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dash, 242 Conn. 143, 146-47, 698 A.2d 297 (1997). Moreover, as we previously have noted, "[t]hese considerations are especially pertinent to a death penalty statute such as § 53a-54b." State v. McGann, 199 Conn. 163, 177, 506 A.2d 109 (1986); see also State v. Breton, 212 Conn. 258, 269, 562 A.2d 1060 (1989) (principle requiring construction of penal statute in favor of accused is "all the more compelling where . . . life [or death] is at stake").

Our point of departure is the statutory language itself, which, of course, must be construed in light of the relevant statutory scheme. When P.A. 73-137 was enacted, there were, as there are now, two degrees of kidnapping: first degree kidnapping under General Statutes (Rev. to 1972) § 53a-92, and second degree kidnapping under General Statutes (Rev. to 1972) § 53a-94. Section 3 of P.A. 73-137 made no distinction between those two degrees of kidnapping, but, rather, referred to the crime of kidnapping generally. We presume, as we must, that the legislature was aware of the penal code provisions pertaining to kidnapping extant when the bill that later became P.A. 73-137 was passed. See, e.g., Dodd v. Middlesex Mutual Assurance Co., 242 Conn. 375, 386, 698 A.2d 859 (1997) ("[t]he legislature is presumed to be aware and to have knowledge of all existing statutes and the effect which its own action or nonaction may have on them"). It is therefore logical to conclude that the reference to kidnapping in P.A. 73-137 was intended to encompass the conduct prohibited by both General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-92 and General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-94. That conduct includes, but is not limited to, the abduction of another person with the intent to compel a third person to pay or deliver money or property as ransom. See generally General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 53a-92, as amended by Public Acts 1992, No. 92-260, § 36.

Furthermore, under the interpretation of § 53a-54b (5) urged by the defendant, a person who abducts another in a sufficiently aggravated manner as to constitute kidnapping in the first degree, but who does not demand ransom, could not be convicted of kidnap-murder under § 53a-54b (5). Indeed, under the statutory construction espoused by the defendant, a person who commits the crime of kidnapping in the first degree with a firearm, an aggravated form of first degree kidnapping, might not fall within the ambit of § 53a-54b (5). The defendant has provided no persuasive reason, and we are aware of none, why the legislature would adopt a capital felony scheme that distinguishes between these different methods of committing the crime of first degree kidnapping.

Moreover, if the legislature had sought to distinguish between the different degrees of kidnapping for purposes of § 53a-54b (5), it knew how to do so. Indeed, the legislature made such a distinction in enacting § 53a-54b (7), which makes it a capital felony to commit a murder in the course of the commission of a sexual assault in the first degree only. The fact that the legislature did not restrict § 53a-54b (5) to those kidnappings that are accompanied by a demand for ransom is a compelling indication that the legislature did not intend to so limit the scope of § 53a-54b (5).

Similarly, when the legislature intended that the crime of capital felony include conduct undertaken to acquire something of value, the legislature expressly did so. See General Statutes § 53a-54b (2) (designating as capital felony "murder committed by a defendant who is hired to commit the same for pecuniary gain or murder committed by one who is hired by the defendant to commit the same for pecuniary gain"). By contrast, the absence of any language in § 53a-54b (5) indicating that the kidnapping must be motivated by pecuniary gain strongly suggests that the legislature did not intend to restrict that capital felony provision to kidnappings accompanied by a demand for ransom.

The defendant nevertheless contends that the legislative history of P.A. 73-137 indicates an intent by the legislature to exclude from the purview of the capital felony statute all kidnappings except those in which the kidnapper demands ransom. The defendant refers to the statements of several legislators who, during the debate on P.A. 73-137, adverted to kidnappings for ransom in connection with their comments supporting the legislation.

The defendant first cites to certain remarks made by Senator George C. Guidera, the Senate chairman of the judiciary committee and a sponsor of the capital felony legislation. In the course of his comments explaining the proposed statute, Senator Guidera offered several examples of the kinds of offenses for which a defendant could be convicted of capital felony, including "the lifer who [murders a correctional officer while] attempt[ing] to escape from prison, the roof top sniper who fires on [and kills] firemen in the performance of their duties, the bank robber or the liquor store holdup man who kills a policeman who attempts to foil his plans — the [murderer of a] deputy sheriff who is transporting a prisoner, the murderer who has already been convicted of one murder, [and] the kidnapper, who when paid his ransom or when denied it, arbitrarily and senselessly chooses to kill the kidnapped, usually a child." 16 S. Proc., Pt. 4, 1973 Sess., p. 1868. Viewed in its proper context, it is apparent that Senator Guidera's reference to a kidnap-murder involving a demand for ransom, like the other scenarios he identified concerning the intentional killings of law enforcement personnel, was intended only as an example of a kidnap-murder for which a defendant could receive the death penalty, not as the exclusive means by which a kidnapper could be subject to the death penalty.

The defendant also relies on a comment by Representative James F. Bingham, who, during a debate on a proposed amendment to delete kidnap-murder from the legislation, spoke briefly in opposition to the amendment. Representative Bingham noted that "[m]urder by a kidnapper of a kidnapped person is the same as murder for hire. It is a heinous crime and should be treated the same as the other specific crimes enunciated in the bill." 16 H.R. Proc., Pt. 6, 1973 Sess., p. 2964. The defendant asserts that Representative Bingham, by equating murder for hire with kidnap-murder, was expressing his understanding that the latter, like the former, requires proof of a pecuniary motive for the commission of the offense. Although the interpretation urged by the defendant is not an unreasonable one, we are not persuaded that Representative Bingham's exceedingly brief, two sentence statement — upon which he did not elaborate — necessarily reflected a belief that a demand for ransom was intended to be an element of kidnap-murder. Indeed, because Representative Bingham never articulated the reason why he equated murder for hire with kidnap-murder, we do not know whether he did so because he believed that both offenses required proof of a pecuniary motive or, rather, because he felt that both crimes were sufficiently deplorable to warrant the death penalty.

Finally, the defendant claims that his interpretation of the kidnap-murder provision of § 53a-54b is supported by a statement made by Representative Samuel S. Freedman who, while speaking in favor of the legislation, noted, among other things, that "this bill attacks the paid killer, those who would seek to gain from the crime of murder." Id., p. 2977. Representative Freedman's remark, however, was part of a longer statement in which he set forth a number of reasons why he supported the death penalty bill, including those provisions of the bill that did not require proof of a pecuniary motive, such as the provision dealing with the murder of a police officer. Again, it is apparent that, taken in context, Representative Freedman's comment was intended only as an example of the "heinous offenses" for which the penalty of death was, in his view, appropriate. See id.

In sum, our careful reading of the legislative history relied upon by the defendant does not persuade us that the legislature intended the narrow reading of the kidnap-murder provision of § 53a-54b espoused by the defendant. We are guided, instead, by the plain and unambiguous language of that provision. Thus, we reject the defendant's claim that § 53a-54b (5) applies only when the victim of a kidnap-murder is the subject of a demand for ransom.

V

Finally, the defendant claims that because he will be required to spend the remainder of his life in prison under the sentence imposed on the capital felony count, the consecutive terms of imprisonment imposed on the burglary and risk of injury counts are superfluous. The defendant asserts that, in light of that fact, the legislature could not reasonably have intended for any term of imprisonment to run consecutively to a sentence of life without the possibility of release. This claim also is without merit.

Under General Statutes § 53a-37, the trial court is authorized to impose sentences on multiple counts either to run concurrently with each other or to run consecutively to each other. The determination whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences is a matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. The defendant has provided us with no authority, and we are aware of none, that limits the ability of the trial court to impose a term of incarceration consecutive to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of release.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, therefore, the fact that the defendant necessarily will serve the rest of his life in prison solely as a result of his capital felony conviction does not deprive the trial court of the authority to impose consecutive prison terms on the burglary and risk of injury counts. In the absence of any express prohibition by the legislature, the court had the right to impose such additional, consecutive time, even if only as an expression of outrage over the especially heinous nature of the defendant's conduct.