PETERS, C.J.

The principal issue in this appeal is the propriety of the trial court's instructions to, and inquiries of, prospective jurors prior to the commencement of individual voir dire. After a jury trial, the defendant, Nathaniel Faust, was convicted of rioting at a correctional institution in violation of General Statutes § 53a-179b. After denying the defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal, the trial court rendered judgment on the jury verdict. The defendant appealed from the judgment of the trial court to the Appellate Court, and we transferred the appeal to this court pursuant to Practice Book § 4023 and General Statutes § 51-199 (c). We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

The jury reasonably could have found the following facts. At all times relevant to this appeal the defendant was an inmate incarcerated at Garner Correctional Institution (Garner). On the evening of April 21, 1993, while the defendant and other inmates were returning to their cells from dinner, an inmate riot occurred at Garner.

When the riot began, correctional officer Francis Stack received a report of inmates fighting. While responding to the report, Stack confronted the defendant and several other inmates in a hallway leading to one of the cellblocks. Stack informed the inmates that their presence in the hallway violated prison regulations, and ordered them to leave the area immediately. All the inmates except the defendant complied with Stack's order. When Stack approached the defendant, the defendant pulled out a sock containing a combination lock. The defendant then repeatedly beat the sock against a sally port window while yelling to other inmates, "It's on" and "Kick it off." Within moments of the defendant's outburst, several other correctional officers joined Stack and, together, they subdued the defendant and escorted him from the hallway. Additional facts will be discussed as they become relevant to the issues before us.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly: (1) gave instructions to and asked questions of prospective jurors; (2) denied his challenge to the venire panels from which the jury for his trial had been selected; and (3) instructed the jury in several regards. We are not persuaded by any of these claims.

I

The defendant first claims that the trial court's introductory instructions to, and inquiries of, two venire panels prior to the commencement of individual voir dire impaired his state constitutional and statutory rights to individual voir dire. We disagree.

The following facts are relevant to this claim. Six jurors and two alternates were selected for the defendant's trial from two separate venire panels. For each venire panel, prior to the commencement of the voir dire examination of individual panel members, the judge, accompanied by counsel for the defendant and counsel for the state, proceeded to the jury assembly room and met the entire panel. The trial court informed the panel that the defendant had been charged with committing criminal offenses, identified those offenses and introduced counsel. After each counsel had made brief statements to the panel, the trial court explained to the panel, in general terms, several fundamental principles of criminal law and instructed the panel on these principles. Additionally, during the trial court's explanation to the first panel of a criminal defendant's constitutional right not to testify at trial, the court remarked to panel members that "I'm not trying to change your minds, I'm trying to tell you certain things that won't get [you] disqualified."

Interspersed among its introductory remarks and instructions, the trial court conducted general inquiries of each venire panel into areas of potential bias or incapacity. The general inquiries required only affirmative or negative responses from panel members. The trial court also asked specific, open-ended follow-up questions of those individual panel members whose responses to the court's general inquiries had revealed possible bias or incapacity. The follow-up questions were asked and answered in the presence of the other panel members.

For each venire panel, after the trial court had completed its introductory instructions and preliminary questions, the court reviewed with both counsel the responses to questions given by individual panel members. The trial court excused several panel members for cause in light of their responses to the inquiries the court had made. Although the trial court invited the defendant to object before it removed panel members for cause, he made no such objection. The trial court also assured counsel that they retained the right to challenge the remaining panel members for cause during individual voir dire. After the trial court's conference with counsel and the court's removal of several panel members for cause, counsel commenced their individual voir dire examination of the remaining panel members.

"Both the federal and state constitutions guarantee to an accused the right to a public trial by an impartial jury. U.S. Const., amends. VI and XIV; Conn. Const., art. I, § 8. . . . Part of the guarantee of a defendant's right to an impartial jury is an adequate voir dire to identify unqualified jurors." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Patterson, 230 Conn. 385, 391, 645 A.2d 535 (1994), on appeal after remand, 236 Conn. 561, ___ A.2d ___ (1996). In Connecticut, "[t]he right to a voir dire examination of each prospective juror in a criminal action is provided by § 54-82f of the General Statutes. [The court has the duty to analyze individual questioning under this section and limit examination to questions relating to (1) juror's qualifications, (2) interest, if any, in the subject matter of the action, and (3) relations with the parties thereto.] This right was established as a constitutional one in 1972 by inclusion in article IV of the amendments to the state constitution of the provision that `[t]he right to question each juror individually by counsel shall be inviolate.'" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Dahlgren, 200 Conn. 586, 600, 512 A.2d 906 (1986); see State v. Couture, 218 Conn. 309, 318, 589 A.2d 343 (1991); State v. Dolphin, 203 Conn. 506, 511, 525 A.2d 509 (1987). We are persuaded that the trial court's instructions and inquiries during its introductory sessions with each of the two venire panels did not violate the defendant's statutory and constitutional rights to individual voir dire.

A

We find no impropriety in the preliminary instructions given by the trial court to each venire panel prior to the commencement of the voir dire examination of individual panel members. "Preliminary instructions serve the important function of orienting the jurors to the nature of the trial to come. It is helpful to explain at the very start the nature and scope of the jury's duty, some of the basic ground rules and the issues to be decided." A Collection of Connecticut Selected Jury Instructions — Criminal (3d Ed. 1995) p. 1-1. Such instructions are commonly given and, if properly crafted, do not infringe upon a defendant's constitutional rights. See, e.g., State v. Figueroa, 235 Conn. 145, 182-85, 665 A.2d 63 (1995); State v. Lewis, 220 Conn. 602, 614-17, 600 A.2d 1330 (1991); State v. Andrews, 29 Conn. App. 533, 539-41, 616 A.2d 1148 (1992), cert. denied, 224 Conn. 924, 618 A.2d 531 (1993); State v. Kelly, 23 Conn. App. 160, 168-70, 580 A.2d 520, cert. denied, 216 Conn. 831, 583 A.2d 130 (1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S. 981, 111 S.Ct. 1635, 113 L.Ed.2d 731 (1991); cf. State v. Woolcock, 201 Conn. 605, 622-28, 518 A.2d 1377 (1986) (approving trial court's use of preliminary instructions following jury selection).

Our review of the instructions given to the venire panels discloses that the instructions were legally accurate, substantially comported with model preliminary instructions; see A Collection of Connecticut Selected Jury Instructions — Criminal, supra, pp. 1-2 through 1-11; and were appropriately tailored to assist panel members in performing their duties as jurors. Moreover, the defendant has failed to demonstrate any way in which the instructions adversely affected his ability to conduct an individual voir dire. Accordingly, we reject the defendant's claim of impropriety as to the trial court's introductory instructions.

Although the instructions to the venire panels were themselves proper, the trial court should not have remarked during its instructions to members of the first venire panel that "I'm trying to tell you certain things that won't get [you] disqualified." The trial court should have confined its introductory remarks and instructions to basic legal principles that informed the panel members of their responsibilities and obligations as jurors and that guided them in fulfilling those responsibilities and obligations. We caution trial courts against making any extraneous and unnecessary comment such as that made by the court in this case. We are persuaded, however, that no prejudice to the defendant's constitutional and statutory rights to individual voir dire flowed from the trial court's remark. The remark was made to only the first venire panel, was brief and isolated, and was made in the midst of the trial court's lengthy introduction to that panel. Moreover, the defendant conducted full individual voir dire examination of each of the jurors who was ultimately selected to sit for his trial. Under these circumstances, we cannot conclude that the single remark, in the overall context of the trial court's otherwise exemplary introductory instructions to the first venire panel, prejudiced the defendant's voir dire rights.

B

We are also persuaded that the questions the trial court asked panel members did not violate the defendant's statutory and constitutional voir dire rights. It is well established that the trial court is vested with broad discretion to determine the extent and form of the voir dire examination. See Bleau v. Ward, 221 Conn. 331, 340, 603 A.2d 1147 (1992); State v. Dahlgren, supra, 200 Conn. 601.

The trial court, however, must temper its exercise of discretion over voir dire in order to comport with the goals of the voir dire examination. "The purpose of the voir dire examination is two-fold: first, to provide information upon which the trial court may decide which prospective jurors, if any, should be excused for cause; and second, to provide information to counsel which may aid them in the exercise of their right to peremptory challenge. . . . There are two sets of interests protected by the voir dire: (1) the interests of the parties, namely, the defendant and the state; and (2) the interests of the prospective jurors." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Patterson, supra, 230 Conn. 391-92. "[T]he exercise of [the trial court's] discretion will not constitute reversible error unless it has clearly been abused or harmful prejudice appears to have resulted." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Skipper, 228 Conn. 610, 625, 637 A.2d 1101 (1994).

A trial court may pose questions to entire venire panels prior to individual voir dire; see State v. Mercer, 208 Conn. 52, 63-64, 544 A.2d 611 (1988); and may dismiss for cause any panel member whose answers to the court's inquiries reveal bias. See id., 64; see also Practice Book § 847. The trial court's ability to question prospective jurors assists the court in its task of excluding from a jury any person about whom it entertains doubts regarding impartiality; see State v. Mercer, supra, 64; and thus enables the court to fulfill its independent duty of securing a criminal defendant's guarantee of a fair trial by an impartial jury. See State v. Brown, 235 Conn. 502, 527, 688 A.2d 1288 (1995); State v. Day, 233 Conn. 813, 843, 661 A.2d 539 (1995). In this case, the trial court's general questions, which merely required an affirmative or negative response from panel members, were pertinent and proper for testing the competency and capacity of panel members to serve as jurors, and were unlikely to plant prejudicial matter in the minds of the panel members. The trial court, therefore, did not abuse its discretion when it posed general questions to the members of each venire panel.

Although the trial court's general inquiries were proper, once individual panel members had indicated the existence of possible bias or incapacity to serve as jurors by their responses to those inquiries, the court should not have proceeded further in the presence of other panel members. Follow-up questions that required elaboration beyond an affirmative or negative response should have been reserved for subsequent individual inquiries. A prospective juror's biased opinions or attitudes, expressed through answers to specific questions in the presence of other members of the venire panel, may taint the impartiality of the other members. See Jurywork: Systematic Techniques (2d Ed. 1989) § 2.11(1), p. 2-68; see also Mu'Min v. Virginia, 500 U.S. 415, 425, 111 S.Ct. 1899, 114 L.Ed.2d 493 (1991); State v. Bible, 175 Ariz. 549, 570, 858 P.2d 1152 (1993) (en banc), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 1578, 128 L.Ed.2d 221 (1994).

In order to decrease the risk of one panel member's bias contaminating an entire venire panel, the preferable procedure would have been for the trial court to note the panel members whose responses to the court's general inquiries indicated possible bias or incapacity, and either to have asked specific follow-up questions outside the hearing of other panel members or to have relied upon the parties to pursue any follow-up questions during individual voir dire. We strongly discourage trial courts from asking such questions of individual panel members in the presence of the entire venire panel. We also caution trial courts to craft all their preliminary inquiries so as to guard against the exposure of prospective jurors to any biases of responding panel members.

Although it would have been preferable, in this case, for the trial court not to have asked follow-up questions in the presence of other panel members, the defendant has failed to establish that the court's conduct prejudiced his ability to conduct individual voir dire. The defendant had ample opportunity to question prospective jurors on prejudice that might have resulted from their exposure to responses to the trial court's preliminary questions. The defendant engaged in individual voir dire with each of the panel members selected to serve as a juror for his trial. During individual voir dire, the trial court did not limit or foreclose in any material respect questions designed to uncover bias or incapacity. Moreover, at the time when the jurors who ultimately convicted the defendant had been selected, the defendant had not exhausted his peremptory challenges. "Unless all his peremptory challenges have been exercised before the completion of jury selection, it is presumed that no juror was permitted to serve whom the defendant regarded as biased or unsuitable, although he might have preferred others." State v. Vitale, 190 Conn. 219, 225, 460 A.2d 961 (1983); State v. Mercer, supra, 208 Conn. 61-62; State v. Miller, 202 Conn. 463, 480, 522 A.2d 249 (1987). The record does not demonstrate that the jurors' exposure to responses given by panel members to the trial court's preliminary questions affected any of the jurors in such a way as to prevent him or her from judging the defendant fairly and impartially. Accordingly, the defendant cannot succeed on this claim of impropriety.

II

The defendant next claims that the selection of venirepersons from the Danbury judicial district rather than from Fairfield county violated his constitutional right to have a jury selected from a fair cross section of the community. We disagree.

"The Sixth Amendment requires that the jury panels be drawn from a source representing a fair cross section of the community in which the defendant is tried. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 536 [ 95 S.Ct. 692, 42 L.Ed.2d 690] (1975) . . . . [T]he Sixth Amendment guarantees the opportunity for a representative jury venire, not a representative venire itself. . . . In order to guarantee this right, Connecticut adopted General Statutes (Rev. to 1991) § 51-220a, which requires that venire panels be randomly selected." (Citations omitted; emphasis in original; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Ellis, 232 Conn. 691, 698-99, 657 A.2d 1099 (1995).

The defendant's cross section claim is a narrow one. The defendant does not challenge his venire panels pursuant to Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357, 99 S.Ct. 664, 58 L.Ed.2d 579 (1979). Rather, the defendant claims only that " [i]f the relevant `community' for `fair cross section' purposes under the Duren test . . . is the county in which the prosecution takes place, then [he] was deprived of that fair cross section because the two arrays of [venirepersons] from which his jury was chosen did not reflect a fair cross section of Fairfield [c]ounty." (Emphasis added.) Our inquiry, therefore, is limited to whether the relevant community for purposes of selecting venire panels is based on counties rather than on judicial districts.

The Appellate Court recently addressed a claim similar to the claim raised by the defendant in this appeal. State v. Carolina, 40 Conn. App. 762, 768-70, 673 A.2d 562 (1996). We agree with the Appellate Court that "[t]o a large extent defining the community for purposes of the sixth amendment is an arbitrary decision. . . . County lines or federal district lines do not magically determine the parameters of a community. . . . [H]owever . . . because the decision is somewhat arbitrary, it is a decision that should be left when possible to a body authorized to legislate on such matters." (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 769, quoting Davis v. Warden, 867 F.2d 1003, 1009 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 920, 110 S.Ct. 285, 107 L.Ed.2d 264 (1989); see Williams v. Superior Court, 49 Cal.3d 736, 744-45, 781 P.2d 537, 263 Cal.Rptr. 503 (1989).

The legislature has determined that the judicial district is the relevant community for purposes of selecting venire panels. "In 1977, the Connecticut legislature adopted a unified court system through the creation of twelve judicial districts that replaced counties as the means of establishing venue. General Statutes § 51-344. Over the next five years, the legislature amended the provisions relating to the selection of jurors to replace the word `county' with the words `judicial district.' See General Statutes §§ 51-219c, 51-220a, 51-222, 51-231, 51-238, 51-344. Through these statutes, the Connecticut legislature has defined the community for purposes of jury selection to be the judicial district instead of the county." State v. Carolina, supra, 40 Conn. App. 769-70.

The defendant does not claim that the legislature either created or has maintained the impaneling statutes for an invidious purpose; see State v. Frazier, 185 Conn. 211, 218, 440 A.2d 916 (1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1112, 102 S.Ct. 3496, 73 L.Ed.2d 1375 (1982); or that the statutes in some other way violate his constitutional rights. In the absence of any challenge to the constitutionality of the impaneling statutes, the defendant's attempt to redefine the area that constitutes the relevant community for jury selection purposes must fail.

III

The defendant also challenges the propriety of the trial court's final instructions to the jury. The defendant contends that portions of the final instructions violated his federal constitutional rights under the sixth amendment and the fourteenth amendment. We are not persuaded by any of the defendant's claims of instructional impropriety.

A

The defendant first claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury on the elements required for a conviction of rioting at a correctional institution under § 53a-179b by removing a necessary element of the offense from the jury's consideration. Although the defendant concedes that he did not preserve this claim at trial, he contends that he is entitled to relief under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 567 A.2d 823 (1989). We conclude that any possible error occasioned by the instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and, therefore, that the defendant's claim fails the fourth prong of Golding.

A defendant is constitutionally entitled to have the jury instructed on the essential elements of the crime charged and to be acquitted unless proven guilty of each element beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Gaudin, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 2313, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995); State v. Williamson, 206 Conn. 685, 708, 539 A.2d 561 (1988); State v. Williams, 202 Conn. 349, 363, 521 A.2d 150 (1987). Accordingly, a trial court is prohibited from incorporating into its jury instructions evidentiary presumptions that have the effect of relieving the state of its burden of proving every essential element of the crime. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 520-24, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); State v. Williams, 199 Conn. 30, 34, 505 A.2d 699 (1986).

To prove a violation of § 53a-179b, one element the state must prove is that the charged offense occurred at a correctional institution. See footnote 1. During the course of its final instructions, the trial court told the jury: "Garner is clearly a correctional institution within the meaning of [§ 53a-179b]. You don't have to waste [any time] on that if you find it occurred at Garner — Garner is a correctional institution."

"In analyzing the defendant's claim, we assume, without deciding, that the challenged instruction constituted a Sandstrom violation. [See Sandstrom v. Montana, supra, 442 U.S. 520-24.] This assumption, however, does not end the inquiry because such an error is harmless if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Tucker, 226 Conn. 618, 624, 629 A.2d 1067 (1993); see State v. Cerilli, 222 Conn. 556, 584, 610 A.2d 1130 (1992).

Upon review of the entire record, we are persuaded that the state has satisfied its burden of proving that any impropriety in the trial court's instruction was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Abundant evidence adduced at trial established that the conduct that had formed the basis of the charged violation of § 53a-179b had occurred at a correctional institution. Witnesses for the state testified not only that the charged offense had occurred at a correctional institution, but also that the defendant had been incarcerated at that correctional institution at the relevant time. The defendant has never contested any of this evidence. To the contrary, the defendant himself testified that he had been incarcerated at a correctional institution at the time of the charged offense. The defendant further testified that inmates had rioted at that correctional institution at the time of the charged offense. His defense was limited to a denial of his participation in the riot.

The evidence adduced at trial compels the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that, in the absence of the assumed improper instruction, the jury would have concluded that the charged violation of § 53a-179b had occurred at a correctional institution. Accordingly, the defendant has failed to satisfy the fourth prong of Golding, and therefore cannot prevail on his claim of harmful instructional error. See State v. Bruno, 236 Conn. 514, 537, 673 A.2d 1117 (1996); State v. Tucker, supra, 226 Conn. 624-25.

B

The defendant next claims that the trial court's instructions on rioting at a correctional institution improperly enlarged the offense with which he had been charged. The defendant first contends that it was improper for the trial court to read to the jury § 53a-179b (a) in its entirety because the information had charged him with violating only a portion of that statute. The defendant also contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that it could find him guilty for inciting, instigating or taking part in a strike, conduct for which he had not been charged. We are unpersuaded by either of these claims.

The following additional facts are relevant to this claim. The information charged the defendant with inciting, instigating or taking part in a disturbance, riot or organized disobedience to the rules and regulations of a correctional institution. During the trial court's final instructions to the jury regarding the count of rioting at a correctional institution, the court read § 53a-179b (a) in its entirety. After the trial court excused the jury, the defendant took an exception to the court's reading of the entire statute. In response to the defendant's exception, the trial court immediately recalled the jury and reinstructed it as follows: "I did read the entire statute to you on riot and the various [ways] it could happen — I think there are seven, eight or nine alternatives. The [i]nformation, of course, alleges [that the defendant] incited — he did incite, instigate, or take part in — you're limited to those three specific words in terms of the allegations of the complaint on riot. Not aiding, abetting or any of those things, but just simply incite, instigate, or take part in. And if you find that he didn't do those things — [any one] of them — then, obviously, you can't find him guilty on that charge." (Emphasis added.) The defendant did not take an exception to the trial court's supplemental instruction, and he does not claim on appeal that the supplemental instruction was in any manner improper.

"It is improper for the trial court to read an entire statute to a jury when the pleadings or the evidence support a violation of only a portion of the statute." State v. Chapman, 229 Conn. 529, 537, 643 A.2d 1213 (1994); State v. Dinoto, 229 Conn. 580, 584, 642 A.2d 717 (1994). In this case, the original jury instructions were overly expansive because the information charged the defendant only with inciting, instigating or taking part in a disturbance. The trial court's supplemental instruction, however, cured the court's improper reading of § 53a-179b (a) in its entirety. "The defendant cannot complain of alleged instructional misstatements that are corrected by a timely supplemental instruction. . . . Indeed, a supplemental charge is likely to enjoy special prominence in the minds of the jurors because it is fresher in their minds when they deliberate." (Citations omitted.) State v. Ross, 230 Conn. 183, 224, 646 A.2d 1318 (1994), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S.Ct. 1133, 130 L.Ed.2d 1095 (1995); State v. Bryant, 233 Conn. 1, 13, 658 A.2d 89 (1995). We therefore reject the defendant's claim based on the trial court's reading of § 53a-179b (a) in its entirety.

We also conclude that the trial court did not enlarge the offense of rioting at a correctional institution to include an uncharged theory that the defendant incited, instigated or took part in a strike. "[T]he standard of review to be applied to the defendant's constitutional claim is whether it is reasonably possible that the jury was misled. . . . In determining whether it was indeed reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court's instructions, the charge to the jury is not to be critically dissected for the purpose of discovering possible inaccuracies of statement, but it is to be considered rather as to its probable effect upon the jury in guiding them to a correct verdict in the case. . . . The charge is to be read as a whole and individual instructions are not to be judged in artificial isolation from the overall charge. . . . The test to be applied to any part of a charge is whether the charge, considered as a whole, presents the case to the jury so that no injustice will result." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Prioleau, 235 Conn. 274, 284, 664 A.2d 743 (1995); State v. Grullon, 212 Conn. 195, 204, 562 A.2d 481 (1989).

Although the trial court mentioned "strike" in its final instructions, the court referred to the term only when it read § 53a-179b (a) to the jury and when it defined the statutory terms "riot," "disorder" and "strike." The trial court never mentioned "strike" in its explanation to the jury of the essential elements of § 53a-179b that the state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, the trial court expressly instructed the jury that, in order to convict the defendant, it had to find that the state had proven that he had committed the acts in the manner alleged in the information, which did not charge him with inciting, instigating or taking part in a strike. Reading the jury charge as a whole, we are persuaded that it is not reasonably possible that the jury was misled by the trial court's isolated references to "strike." Accordingly, the defendant's claim must fail.

C

Last, the defendant claims that the trial court impermissibly diluted the state's burden of proving him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant contends that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to disregard the standard of reasonable doubt mentioned by defense counsel in his closing argument, and improperly instructed the jury regarding reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence and the jury's legal duty. We disagree.

We find no error in the trial court's instruction to the jury to disregard counsel's remarks concerning the standard of reasonable doubt. It is the sole province of the trial court to instruct the jury on the law that it will apply during its deliberations. Moreover, "[a] trial court has wide discretion to determine the propriety of counsel's argument and may caution the jury to disregard improper remarks in order to contain prejudice. A reviewing court may only disturb the trial court's actions in instances of abuse of this wide discretion." State v. Herring, 210 Conn. 78, 102, 554 A.2d 686, cert. denied, 492 U.S. 912, 109 S.Ct. 3230, 106 L.Ed.2d 579 (1989).

In this case, although defense counsel's remarks might have constituted an accurate but abbreviated summary of the reasonable doubt standard, we are persuaded that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it instructed the jury to disregard the remarks. The instruction was generally worded, neither expressly referring to nor mentioning the defendant or his closing argument, and had been preceded by another instruction to the jury to disregard both parties' descriptions of the law. Moreover, we have repeatedly stated that attempts to clarify reasonable doubt should be avoided because they often tend to obfuscate that concept. "A criminal defendant is entitled to a clear and unequivocal charge that his guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. . . . We have recognized that [a]ttempts to explain the term `reasonable doubt' do not usually result in making it any clearer to the minds of the jury. . . . We have further noted that [j]udicial attempts to clarify the meaning of the phrase `reasonable doubt' by explanation, elaboration or illustration . . . more often than not tend to confuse or mislead. . . . [W]e find no abuse of discretion in the court instructing the jury to disregard argument by counsel tending to cloud the meaning of so important a concept as reasonable doubt. In so doing, the trial court discharge[s] its duty to give jury instructions that are accurate in law, adapted to the issues and adequate to guide the jury in reaching a correct verdict." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Butler, 207 Conn. 619, 636-37, 543 A.2d 270 (1988); see also State v. Figueroa, supra, 235 Conn. 184; State v. Ryerson, 201 Conn. 333, 342, 514 A.2d 337 (1986). Under these circumstances, we are unpersuaded that the trial court's instruction constituted an abuse of discretion.

The defendant's challenge to the portions of the trial court's instructions regarding reasonable doubt, the presumption of innocence and the jury's duty warrants little discussion. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly instructed the jury that the "law is made to protect society and innocent persons not to protect guilty ones" and that it is the "sworn duty of [the] jury to enforce the law . . ." As the defendant acknowledges, however, we have on several occasions upheld, in the context of the jury charge as a whole, language identical or substantially similar to the challenged language. See, e.g., State v. Cassidy, 236 Conn. 112, 145, 672 A.2d 899 (1996) ("the law is made to protect society and innocent persons and not to protect guilty ones" [internal quotation marks omitted]); State v. Stanley, 223 Conn. 674, 695-96, 613 A.2d 788 (1992) (same); State v. Palmer, 196 Conn. 157, 168, 491 A.2d 1075 (1985) ("it is the sworn duty of the jury to enforce the law which is made for the protection of life, society and property and to render such a verdict as the evidence warrants" [internal quotation marks omitted]). Neither of the challenged instructions, when properly considered in the broader context of the trial court's instructions in their entirety, diluted the state's burden of proof or otherwise misled the jury in any way. See State v. Cassidy, supra, 145; State v. Francis, 228 Conn. 118, 135-36, 635 A.2d 762 (1993); State v. Palmer, supra, 168-69. The challenged instructions, therefore, were proper.