ARTHUR H. HEALEY, J.

This appeal involves various aspects of a criminal defendant's right to self-representation at trial, including whether he has a right to hybrid representation. On August 22, 1980, the defendant was charged by an information with tampering with a witness in violation of General Statutes 53a-151. After entering a plea of not guilty to the charge, he was tried by a jury and found guilty.

On appeal, he raises claims that the trial court erred in that it: (1) caused him to conduct a portion of his trial alone without first obtaining a valid waiver of his state and federal constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2) violated his state constitutional right to hybrid representation when his request to proceed as co-counsel was denied; (3) expressly restricted the role of his standby counsel in violation of Practice Book 964; and (4) violated Practice Book 632 in originally granting his defense counsel's motion to withdraw. We find no error.

Some elaboration of the pertinent pretrial proceedings is necessary for disposition of the defendant's appeal. Subsequent to being charged with the present offense, the defendant applied for and was found eligible to receive the services of a public defender. Attorney Judith Hoberman was appointed to represent him. Upon his plea of not guilty and election of trial by jury, the defendant's case was assigned for trial on December 11, 1980.

Prior to the voir dire of the prospective jurors, the trial court was informed by Hoberman that the defendant had "expressed" to her "an interest to conduct a portion of his own defense." Hoberman informed the trial court that she could not appear as co-counsel with the defendant, that she had suggested to him that he file a pro se appearance, and that she would move to withdraw her appearance for the defendant. Hoberman further informed the court that she would be willing to appear as the defendant's standby counsel in the event he elected to proceed pro se.

The trial court then cautioned the defendant of the dangers of self-representation. Specifically, the trial court advised the defendant of the gravity of the offense with which he was charged, that if convicted he faced a possible sentence of up to five years of imprisonment, and that "a trial, particularly a trial to the jury, is going to require a very real degree of expertise to be properly conducted." In explaining the latter point, the court cited the expertise needed to argue intelligently about the admissibility of evidence. The court then in no uncertain terms warned the defendant of the dangers of self-representation: "You're putting yourself in a terrible position in attempting to represent yourself. You are not really cognizant of how a trial is conducted, what the appropriate law is, what the appropriate rules of evidence are and that sort of thing. You realize to be a lawyer requires three years of graduate school just to start. Now you can't possible [sic] have that background expertise."

The defendant's response to the court's statements was: "What you said is quite true — As a matter of fact absolutely true, but what you don't understand is that my counsel — I discussed with my counsel the case and she is just not going to submit things that I want submitted, that I feel need to be submitted, to the jury to understand what's fully going on here." Upon the court's suggestion that, because of his counsel's "expertise," a decision not to develop "certain things" may have been necessary "under the rules of evidence," the defendant declared: "Oh, yes they can be brought out and they will be brought out if I have anything to say about this. I am the one being accused. They drag me in here, accuse me and there's no way I can see myself sitting here not saying anything in my defense."

Hoberman then renewed her motion to withdraw. The trial court expressly asked the defendant whether he realized that he was "entitled to be represented," to which the defendant answered, "[r]ight." The trial court asked the defendant whether he "realize[d] that this can run into a lot of technicalities, in the course of a trial, of which you are unaware." The defendant responded that he did not "want to conduct a full trial," but rather "[a]ll I want is a small portion — a little say. [Attorney Hoberman] will be conducting the trial." The court then said: "Well, I can't force a lawyer on you," and the defendant stated: "So, please don't let her go." The court further inquired of the defendant whether "[k]nowing your rights and knowing the difficulties with which you are facing, nevertheless, you want to conduct your own defense?" The defendant responded, "I don't want to conduct the whole trial, I just want to be able to have, you know, a say, a few things here and there. She would counsel me, of course, before I say it."

The trial court then proposed that if the defendant filed "a pro se appearance" the court would grant Hoberman's motion to withdraw but would also order her "to remain in attendance as standby counsel." The court then instructed the clerk to ensure that the defendant was provided a pro se appearance form. Hoberman requested that the defendant be given "just a few moments to consider your Honor's latest proposal," but the defendant retorted: "I understand it perfectly well." The court warned the defendant that further delay of the trial would not be permitted and directly asked the defendant: "Are you entering a pro se appearance or are you not?" The defendant responded affirmatively: "That's correct." The defendant filed his pro se appearance with the trial court which then granted Hoberman's motion to withdraw her appearance as the defendant's counsel. The court, however, appointed Hoberman as standby counsel for the defendant and directed her "to remain in attendance."

The defendant thereafter presented his opening statement to the jury panel, in which he represented that he was a student "at Yale College with the Special Division Program," and he personally conducted the voir dire during jury selection. Just prior to the presentation of evidence, the defendant orally moved to dismiss the charges against him on the ground that there was "no probable cause in the first place to arrest me." During the hearing on this motion, the defendant, as he asserts in his brief, "requested that his counsel be re-appointed and withdrew his appearance." Noting that the defendant had already "made a knowing waiver of the right to be represented by counsel," the court granted the defendant's request, and the pro se appearance was withdrawn. Later during the actual trial, the defendant changed his position and requested and was granted the court's permission to conduct his representation on a pro se basis. Hoberman's appearance was again withdrawn, and the court appointed her as the defendant's standby counsel. The defendant then conducted the balance of his trial, including the presentation of final argument to the jury.

I

We address first the defendant's claim that the trial court "caused him to conduct a portion of his trial alone without first obtaining a valid waiver" of his state and federal constitutional right to assistance of counsel. Specifically, the defendant argues that, because the "waiver" of his right to counsel should be held invalid on the ground that the record does not clearly demonstrate that he made "an unequivocal request to represent himself," he is entitled to an automatic reversal of his conviction in that he had represented himself during a portion of the proceedings when the right to counsel had attached.

The state does not dispute that the defendant had a state and federal constitutional right to assistance of counsel during both the voir dire of the prospective jurors and the pretrial hearing on the defendant's pro se motion to dismiss. In State v. Gethers, 193 Conn. 526, 480 A.2d 435 (1984), it is implicit that the court viewed the right to counsel as having attached during the stage of the proceeding involved in the voir dire of prospective jurors. Id., 532-33. This court also regards the voir dire under Connecticut law as "an integral part" of the criminal trial and a "critical stage" of the proceeding. Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U.S. 1, 7, 90 S.Ct. 1999, 26 L.Ed.2d 387 (1970); State v. Ibraimov, 187 Conn. 348, 357, 446 A.2d 382 (1982); State v. Canady, 187 Conn. 281, 289, 445 A.2d 895 (1982); 3 Wharton, Criminal Procedure (12th Ed. Torcia 1975) 411. We turn next to the primary component of the defendant's claim, i.e., the record does not clearly demonstrate that he made an unequivocal request to represent himself.

A criminal defendant is guaranteed the right to assistance of counsel under both the federal; see Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963); and the state constitutions. See State v. Gethers, supra, 533. A criminal defendant also has the right to appear pro se in a state criminal trial "when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so." Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 807, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975); see also State v. Gethers, supra, citing Lyles v. Estelle, 658 F.2d 1015, 1020(5th Cir. 1981); see generally annot., 98 A.L.R.3d 13 (1980). The court in Faretta stated the rule as follows: "When an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes, as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to counsel. For this reason, in order to represent himself, the accused must `knowingly and intelligently' forego those relinquished benefits. Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. [458, 464-65, 58 S.Ct. 1019, 82 L.Ed. 1461 (1938)]. Cf. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U.S. 708, 723-24, 68 S.Ct. 316, 92 L.Ed. 309 (plurality opinion of Black, J.). Although a defendant need not himself have the skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-representation, so that the record will establish that `he knows what he is doing and his choice is made with eyes open.' Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. [269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942)]." Faretta v. California, supra, 835 In accordance with Faretta, we have recognized that "[n]othing more intricate than a voluntary and intelligent waiver of counsel is required of an accused to exercise his right to defend himself in person." State v. Gethers, supra, 533, citing Faretta v. California, supra, 835.

In reciting the circumstances of that case, the Faretta court noted that: "Here, weeks before trial, Faretta clearly and unequivocally declared to the trial judge that he wanted to represent himself and did not want counsel." Faretta v. California, supra, 835. Some courts have extrapolated from this language a further requirement that the defendant's request to proceed pro se must be clear and unequivocal; Raulerson v. Wainwright, 732 F.2d 803, 808 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 966, 105 S.Ct. 366, 83 L.Ed.2d 302 (1984); United States v. Tompkins, 623 F.2d 824, 827-28 (2d Cir. 1980); United States v. Bennett, 539 F.2d 45, 50 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 925, 97 S.Ct. 327, 50 L.Ed.2d 293 (1976); State v. Crafts, 425 A.2d 194, 196 (Me. 1981); and the defendant contends that the record establishes that this he did not do. Our review of the record in this case, as we demonstrate below, reveals that the defendant did make a valid waiver of his constitutional right to counsel.

The defendant argues, and we agree, that the gist of his initial dialogue with the trial court, "accurately construed," was a request to act as co-counsel along with his court-appointed attorney. The defendant's request for hybrid representation was denied by the trial court, and we agree that this type of request should not be considered as a request to proceed pro se. See Raulerson v. Wainwright, supra, 808; United States v. Bennett, supra, 49. We note that the defendant's court-appointed counsel expressed clearly her lack of willingness to serve as co-counsel with the defendant, and the record discloses that the defendant's wish to be permitted hybrid representation status was the catalyst for Hoberman's first motion to withdraw her appearance as his attorney.

The trial court, faced on the first scheduled day of trial with a defendant requesting a status to which he had no legal right; see Part II, infra; and a motion to withdraw from an attorney whom the defendant considered to be a "very good lawyer," scrupulously attempted to accommodate the defendant's desire to participate actively in conducting his defense within constitutional parameters. Cf. Moreno v. Estelle, 717 F.2d 171 (5th Cir. 1983). The court, after ensuring that the requirements for a valid waiver had been satisfied; see State v. Gethers, supra, 532-40; see generally Practice Book 961; proposed that if the defendant wanted to proceed pro se, Hoberman would be appointed as his standby counsel to be available "for consultation" and ready "to step in" when the defendant during the trial realized he was "out of [his] depth." The record establishes without question that the defendant affirmatively responded to this proposal, stated on the record that he understood it "perfectly well," and accepted it both orally and by filing a written pro se appearance form.

If the trial court has first made appropriate inquiries regarding the defendant's choice of representation "the court can then properly insist that the defendant choose between representation by his existing counsel and proceeding pro se." United States v. Welty, 674 F.2d 185, 188 (3d Cir. 1982). "A criminal defendant may be asked, in the interest of orderly procedures, to choose between waiver and another course of action as long as the choice presented to him is not constitutionally offensive." Maynard v. Meachum, 545 F.2d 273, 278 (1st Cir. 1976). In the present case, the trial court heard statements from both the defendant and his counsel regarding their difference of opinion. The trial court then inquired of the defendant regarding the criteria for an effective waiver. See footnote 2, supra. "When a defendant is faced with the choice of proceeding with counsel he is not entirely happy with or defending pro se, the trial judge must satisfy himself that if the defendant chooses to proceed pro se, he does so knowingly, with a full understanding of the risks involved." Cordoba v. Harris, 473 F. Sup. 632, 637 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). This the trial court did do, and the defendant makes no claim that the trial court failed to comply with Practice Book 961.

First, the trial court expressly advised the defendant of his right to be represented by counsel. Second, the trial court warned the defendant at length about the dangers of self-representation. Third, the defendant was apprised of the nature of the proceedings against him, and of the potential exposure to punishment. See footnote 2, supra; see also State v. Gethers, supra, 537 (the trial court "may appropriately presume that defense counsel has explained the nature of the offense in sufficient detail"); cf. State v. Barker, 35 Wash. App. 388, 393-94, 667 P.2d 108 (1983). Fourth, the defendant actively participated in the colloquies involved, which were both informative and lively. Fifth, the trial court had extensive opportunities to see, hear and evaluate the defendant's intelligence and perceptions. On this record we conclude that the defendant did voluntarily and intelligently waive his constitutional right to counsel in choosing the option of proceeding pro se with standby counsel available to him; see Flowers v. Fair, 680 F.2d 261 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 946, 103 S.Ct. 262, 74 L.Ed.2d 204 (1982); and the record establishes that" `he [knew] what he [was] doing and his choice [was] made with eyes open.'" Faretta v. California, supra, 835, citing Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U.S. 269, 279, 63 S.Ct. 236, 87 L.Ed. 268 (1942).

II

The defendant also claims that the trial court erred by denying him the right to hybrid representation that he contends is guaranteed by article first, 8, of the constitution of the state of Connecticut. The key portion of that provision declares that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel . . . ." Conn. Const., art. I 8. In his brief the defendant argues that the plain language of the provision "suggests that the right the framers [of the Connecticut constitution] sought to protect was the right of a criminal accused to present his case as co-counsel with his retained or appointed attorney, should he so desire." (Emphasis in original.) The defendant also argues that "the standard tools of constitutional construction" demonstrate that "the provision must be interpreted so as to guarantee a right to hybrid representation." We disagree and hold today that article first, 8, of the Connecticut constitution does not guarantee the right to hybrid representation.

As a preliminary matter, it is necessary to define the term "hybrid representation," also known as "cocounsel" status. The defendant explains that "[u]nder such a `hybrid representation' arrangement, both he and his attorney would conduct portions of his trial, while he retained ultimate control over defense strategy." Accord 2 LaFave Israel, Criminal Procedure (1984) 11.5(f); comment, "The Right to Appear Pro Se: Developments in the Law," 59 Neb. L. Rev. 135, 156-57 (1980); note, "The Accused as Co-Counsel: The Case for the Hybrid Defense," 12 Val. U.L. Rev. 329, 339 (1978); see 21A Am.Jur.2d, Criminal Law 767 (1981). The state does not dispute that a hybrid representation arrangement involves "the joint presentation of his defense by him and by his counsel." Theoretically, hybrid representation can be considered as the ultimate product of a criminal defendant's "partial waiver" of both his Faretta right to self-representation and his right to assistance of counsel. 2 LaFave Israel, supra. The record indicates that, in the pertinent proceedings, the defendant's initial colloquy with the trial court could be fairly construed as a request for hybrid representation, although he never explicitly requested "co-counsel" or "hybrid" status.

The defendant premises his hybrid representation claim on the state rather than the federal constitution. It has been uniformly established that the right to counsel under the sixth amendment to the federal constitution does not guarantee a criminal defendant the right to hybrid representation. The United States Supreme Court recently indicated that "Faretta does not require a trial judge to permit `hybrid' representation of the type Wiggins was actually allowed." McKaskle v. Wiggins, 465 U.S. 168, 183, 104 S.Ct. 944, 79 L.Ed.2d 122, reh. denied, 465 U.S. 1112, 104 S.Ct. 1620, 80 L.Ed.2d 148, on remand, 729 F.2d 1026 (5th Cir. 1984). Quite clearly, there is no federal constitutional right to hybrid representation. And it must be remembered that, "although we fully recognize the primary independent vitality of the provisions of our own constitution"; Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 641, 376 A.2d 359 (1977); "the decisions of the United States Supreme Court defining federal constitutional rights are, at the least, persuasive authority"; id.; and thus may be "afforded respectful consideration." Id., 642; see also Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 66, 469 A.2d 1201 (1984).

The defendant essentially argues that the plain meaning of the pertinent clause of article first, 8, compels the conclusion that the right to hybrid representation is one guaranteed by our state constitution. Again, the constitutional language, which is the focus of this claim on appeal, provides that "[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself and by counsel . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Conn. Const., art. I 8. The defendant argues that the framers' use of the conjunctive "and" rather than the disjunctive "or" and the application of the phrase "to be heard" supports his position.

"In dealing with constitutional provisions we must assume that infinite care was employed to couch in scrupulously fitting language a proposal aimed at establishing or changing the organic law of the state. Cahill v. Leopold, 141 Conn. 1, 19, 103 A.2d 818; 1 Cooley, Constitutional Limitations (8th Ed.) p. 125. Unless there is some clear reason for not doing so, effect must be given to every part of and each word in the constitution." Stolberg v. Caldwell, 175 Conn. 586, 597-98, 402 A.2d 763 (1978), appeal dismissed sub. nom. Stolberg v. Davidson, 454 U.S. 958, 102 S.Ct. 496, 70 L.Ed.2d 374 (1981). Although the simplicity of the defendant's argument may have some superficial appeal, important questions involving constitutional principles, as a general rule, "cannot be so easily solved." Adams v. Rubinow, 157 Conn. 150, 155, 251 A.2d 49 (1968). We find the defendant's "plain meaning" argument unpersuasive.

In his brief, the defendant maintains the plain language of article first, 8, "clearly suggests that the right the framers sought to protect was the right of a criminal accused to present his case as co-counsel with his retained or appointed attorney, should he so desire." (Emphasis in original.) We have previously noted, however, that "[s]imilar provisions in other states have not been construed to entitle an accused as a matter of right to be heard by both himself and by counsel." State v. Carr, 172 Conn. 458, 475, 374 A.2d 1107 (1977). Constitutional framers' selection of the word "and"in comparable "right to be heard" provisions in other jurisdictions has been held not to encompass a state constitutional guarantee: to "a right to representation and self-representation simultaneously"; Hooks v. State, 416 A.2d 189, 199 (Del. 1980); to "simultaneous enjoyment" of "these two basic rights"; State v. Burkhart, 541 S.W.2d 365, 369 (Tenn. 1976); "to have his case presented in court by both himself and counsel acting at the same time"; People v. Sharp, 7 Cal.3d 448, 459, 499 P.2d 489, 103 Cal.Rptr. 233 (1972), citing People v. Mattson, 51 Cal.2d 777, 336 P.2d 937 (1959); State v. Burgin, 539 S.W.2d 652, 654 (Mo. 1976), citing State v. Velanti, 331 S.W.2d 542, 546 (Mo. 1960); "to be represented by counsel and at the same time actively conduct his own defense"; Moore v. People, 171 Colo. 338, 346, 467 P.2d 50 (1970), citing People v. Mattson, supra; to "an absolute right of the defendant to actively participate, with his counsel, in the trial of his case"; Moore v. State, 83 Wis.2d 285, 298, 265 N.W.2d 540, cert. denied, 439 U.S. 956, 99 S.Ct. 356, 58 L.Ed.2d 348 (1978); or "may intermittently use and then discard counsel." State v. Whitlow, 13 Or. App. 607, 610, 510 P.2d 1354 (1973); accord Mosby v. State, 457 S.W.2d 836, 839-40 (Ark. 1970); People v. Mirenda, 57 N.Y.2d 261, 265-66 n., 442 N.E.2d 49, 455 N.Y.S.2d 752 (1982) (state constitutional provision allowing criminal defendant "to appear and defend in person and by counsel" refers to two separate rights that are not to be exercised "both at the same time"); cf. Burney v. State, 244 Ga. 33, 36, 257 S.E.2d 543, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 970, 100 S.Ct. 463, 62 L.Ed.2d 385 (1979) (state constitution provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of the right to prosecute or defend his own cause in any of the courts of this state, in person, by attorney, or both"); Gray v. Mississippi, 351 So.2d 1342, 1345 (Miss. 1977) (state constitution provides that "the accused shall have a right to be heard by himself or counsel, or both"); contra Wake v. Barker, 514 S.W.2d 692 (Ky.App. 1974). Thus, the weight of authority overwhelmingly demonstrates that the defendant's suggested construction of "and" in article first, 8, is far from plain. See State v. Carr, supra.

In sum, we are not persuaded that the framers' use of the conjunctive in article first, 8, manifests an intent to guarantee hybrid representation. "`If the words have a doubtful meaning, or are susceptible of two meanings, they should receive that which will effectuate the intent of the framers of the Constitution and the general intent of the instrument.' Borino v. Lounsbury, 86 Conn. 622, 625, 86 A. 597 (1913)." Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 62.

The Borino rule also assists in our analysis of the phrase, "right to be heard, "in 8 of article first. Historical background, where there is ambiguity, may be utilized as a proper tool to discern the framers' intent in drafting the language of constitutional provisions; see Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra; or of legislative enactments. See Perille v. Raybestos-Manhattan-Europe, Inc., 196 Conn. 529, 494 A.2d 555 (1985). Constitutional interpretation can be "necessarily influenced" by recognition of a provision's historical roots, including its English common law antecedents. Borino v. Lounsbury, supra, 629; see Faretta v. California, supra, 821-22. Our examination of the historical background of article first, 8, discloses that there are two related yet separate legal developments that may have culminated in the original adoption of this provision of the first Connecticut constitution in 1818.

First, the independent right of an individual accused of the commission of a crime to self-representation had evolved. See generally Faretta v. California, supra. "[U]nder the ancient English common law a person on trial for a felony was not allowed counsel and was not a competent witness in his own behalf." State v. Carr, supra, 473. In cases involving other crimes that were prosecuted in the Star Chamber, a defendant was compelled "to accept representation by counsel whose object was to avoid the disapprobation which would follow if anything in the defendant's answer to the indictment offended the Crown." Hooks v. State, supra, 199; see also Faretta v. California, supra, 821-23. During interrogation conducted in the Star Chamber, the accused was not permitted assistance of counsel. Note, "Assistance of Counsel: A Right to Hybrid Representation," 57 B.U.L. Rev. 570, 577 (1977). After the elimination of the Star Chamber, "every litigant was required to `appear before the court in his own person and conduct his own cause in his own words.'" (Footnote omitted.) Faretta v. California, supra, 823. The legal fiction had emerged that the presiding judge could serve in these undoubtedly inquisitorial proceedings as counsel for the accused. Id., 824 n. 21; State v. Carr, supra, 473; State v. Hoyt, 47 Conn. 518, 543-44 (1880); note, 57 B.U.L. Rev., supra, 577. Incremental statutory reform commencing in late seventeenth century England provided criminal defendants with the option of presenting a defense "`by Counsel learned in the Law.'" Faretta v. California, supra, 824; see also State v. Burkhart, supra, 367; note, 57 B.U.L. Rev., supra. The right to counsel thus emerged "as guaranteeing a choice between representation by counsel and the traditional practice of self-representation." Faretta v. California, supra, 825; see also State v. Burkhart, supra.

Historically, "[i]n the American Colonies the insistence upon a right of self-representation was, if anything, more fervent than in England." Faretta v. California, supra, 826. As a general proposition, the scope of the right to counsel in early colonial times was probably limited, just as it had been in England. See note, 57 B.U.L. Rev., supra, 578. Because lawyers in colonial America were identified with the Crown, distrust of lawyers was institutionalized as several colonies, including Connecticut, initially "prohibited pleading for hire in the 17th century." Faretta v. California, supra, 827 and n. 32. By the end of that century, however, the right to counsel had been established in Connecticut. Id., n. 35; 2 Swift, A System of the Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796) pp. 398-99. Appointment of counsel was "the practice in Connecticut in the latter part of the 18th century; appointment apparently was sometimes made even when the accused failed to request counsel, if he appeared in need of a lawyer, but there is no indication appointment was ever made over the objection of the accused." Faretta v. California, supra, 830 n. 40, citing 2 Swift, supra, 392.

Thus, by the time of the adoption of our first state constitution in 1818, a defendant in a criminal case had the right to present a defense, including one by counsel, if he so chose. Under the rationale as espoused by the recent illustrative decision in Hooks v. State, supra, our constitutional provision guaranteeing "a right to be heard by himself and by counsel" simply "was addressed to securing both of these equally important fundamental rights. But we are not persuaded that a hybrid representation arrangement would be in any way consistent with or of assistance to the framers' original intent. The discussion in Faretta clearly shows that the states envisioned the right to counsel as an adjunct to the ever-present right to self-representation, available if the defendant wishes to make use of it." Id., 199; see Betts v. Brady, 316 U.S. 455, 466, 62 S.Ct. 1252, 86 L.Ed. 1595 (1942).

The second development in the law involved the competency of a criminal defendant to testify on his own behalf at trial. The ancient common law rule was "that a person charged with a criminal offense is incompetent to testify under oath in his own behalf at his trial." Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 81 S.Ct. 756, 5 L.Ed.2d 783 (1961). In our examination of the English common law system, we have already indicated that after the English revolution the defendant was permitted to argue on his own behalf at trial. Faretta v. California, supra, 823-24. "In the process the defendant could offer by way of explanation material that would later be characterized as testimony. . . . In the seventeenth century, however, he was allowed to call witnesses in his behalf; the right to have them sworn was accorded by statute for treason in 1695 and for all felony in 1701. 7 Will. III, c. 3; 1 Anne, St. 2, c. 9. . . . A distinction was drawn between the accused and his witnesses — they gave evidence but he did not. . . . The general acceptance of the interest rationale as a basis for disqualification reinforced this distinction, since the criminal defendant was, of course, par excellence an interested witness." (Emphasis in original.) Ferguson v. Georgia, supra, 574.

This rule was the law in Connecticut when the state constitution was adopted: "It is a general rule in criminal cases, that a person who is either to be a gainer, or loser in the event of the cause, in which he is called to give evidence, is incompetent, and cannot be examined." Swift, A Digest of the Law of Evidence in Civil and Criminal Cases (1810) p. 69; see generally Lucas v. State, 23 Conn. 18 (1854). However, the defendant, as explained above, had the right to make his oral statement, unsworn, in his case. In 1867, the common law disability prohibiting a defendant from testifying under oath was abrogated by statute in Connecticut. See General Statutes 54-84.

By 1818, then, one accused of a crime in our state had no right to testify' in his own behalf. He could, however, be "heard" in his role as defendant by making an unsworn statement himself. The provision in article first, 8, that guarantees the accused "a right to be heard by himself and by counsel" may have been intended by the framers "to insure that every accused citizen enjoyed the benefit of counsel and a correlative right to be heard in person." (Emphasis in original.) State v. Burkhart, supra, 371. Under the rationale espoused by such cases as Burkhart and Landers v. State, 550 S.W.2d 272 (Tex.Crim.App. 1977), article first, 8, was "intended to afford an accused the right to participate and be heard in his trial while at the same time removing the restrictions to full representation and participation of counsel." Landers v. State, supra, 277; see also State v. Burkhart, supra. The short answer to the critics of this line of reasoning that it causes the phrase, "to be heard," "to have different meanings as to the terms himself, or counsel or both"; Landers v. State, supra, 281 (Phillips, J., dissenting); is that this theory assumes the framers' intent that each would be "heard" in accordance with his respective accepted role as defined at that time in history. The defendant could at that time appear as an unsworn witness represented by counsel. If the accused, however, chose to represent himself, then he would be "heard" in the capacity of counsel as well as in that of defendant. After the disqualification of a defendant as a witness was removed by statute his right to make an unsworn statement was replaced by the right to testify. See Landers v. State, supra.

In any event, we need not base our resolution of this issue on an express selection between these two historical developments. In light of all this background, we instead are persuaded that to accept the defendant's argument that article first, 8, guarantees a right to hybrid representation would be tantamount to viewing that provision's language "as newly descended from the firmament like fresh fallen snow"; Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, supra, 62; as there is scant evidence that the framers ever intended, much less imagined, any such result. That provision has not previously been so construed by this court. See State v. Carr, supra, 475. In conclusion, we decline the defendant's invitation to so construe this provision of our state constitution.

III

The defendant also claims that the trial court committed reversible error by granting defense counsel Hoberman's motion to withdraw in that the court did not first establish "good cause"; see Practice Book 632; and by restricting the role of his standby counsel so as to violate Practice Book 964. The state counters that these claims, raised for the first time on appeal, have not been properly preserved for appellate review. In neither his brief nor his reply brief does the defendant address the state's argument that these claims have not been preserved for our review.

Our rules of practice, of course, require that a party, in order to preserve a claim for appeal, "distinctly [raise]" it at trial. Practice Book 3063; see also Practice Book 315; State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 65-66, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). As we stated in Evans, supra, 70, and have reiterated since, it is only in "exceptional circumstances" "that newly raised claims can and will be considered by this court." The first such circumstance involving a recently discovered constitutional right is inapposite to these claims. Nor is the second exceptional circumstance, the deprivation "of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial," implicated here. Id. We do note, however, that the record, fairly read, supports the state's position that the defendant received a fundamentally fair trial, and the defendant asserts no claim to the contrary.