(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gomes , 337 Conn. 826, 849–50, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). A

" Following the filing of the parties' initial briefs in this case, this court granted the defendant's motion to stay the appeal pending our Supreme Court's decision in State v. Gomes , 337 Conn. 826, 853, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). In Gomes , our Supreme Court held that the model jury instruction "failed to inform the jury not only of a defendant's right to rely upon relevant deficiencies or lapses in the police investigation to raise the specter of reasonable doubt ... but also the jury's concomitant right to consider any such deficiencies in evaluating whether the state has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt."

(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826, 838–39, 256 A.3d 131 (2021).

(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Gomes , 337 Conn. 826, 849–50, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). With these principles in mind, we turn to the defendant's claims.

.Gomes, 337 Conn. 826, 849, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). ''We evaluate the harmfulness of a nonconstitutional error on the record as a whole....

As a result, the respondent initially asserted that the petitioner's appeal was moot because the petitioner had been deported based in part on convictions unconnected to this appeal. After briefing was completed in this case, this court issued its decision in State v. Gomes , 337 Conn. 826, 256 A.3d 131 (2021), which held that deportation does not render an appeal moot because the court can render practical relief regarding the collateral consequences of a criminal conviction. See id., at 838, 845, 256 A.3d 131.

The State also points out that testing Dow's urine for marijuana would have shown, at best, that Dow had smoked marijuana in the recent past, but it would not have shown who he smoked the marijuana with (and would therefore be of little to no investigative value). See Moore, 109 N.E.3d at 497 (noting that out-of-court statements can be introduced for the nonhearsay purpose of proving that police did not take "reasonable steps to investigate," but that the probative value of such evidence rests on the reasonableness of the police action or inaction); State v. Gomes, 256 A.3d 131, 148 (Conn. 2021).

See Connecticut Criminal Jury Instructions 9.2-1, available at https://jud.ct.gov/JI/Criminal/Criminal.pdf (last visited April 18, 2022); see also State v. Gomes , 337 Conn. 826, 853 n.19, 256 A.3d 131 (2021) (cautioning that model jury instructions are to be used as " ‘guide’ " and are for instructive purposes). Because the present claim of plain error arises in the context of a claim of instructional error, we are mindful that, "[a]lthough, on rare occasions, [our Supreme Court has] granted plain error review for claims of improper jury instructions ... [it has] done so only when the instruction in question either failed to include language from a mandatory charging statute, or when the instruction was so patently improper that to allow it to stand uncorrected would work a manifest injustice."

, the defendant has the burden of establishing that it is reasonably probable that the jury was misled. State v. Gomes, 337 Conn. 826, 849, 256 A.3d 131 (2021).

Case law generally references article fifth, § 1, for the proposition that the legislature is responsible for establishing certain lower courts and defining their jurisdiction. See, e.g., Adams v. Rubinow , 157 Conn. 150, 155–56, 251 A.2d 49 (1968) ; see also, e.g., State v. Gomes , 337 Conn. 826, 842–43, 256 A.3d 131 (2021). None of the cases Valerie relies on stands for the proposition that a termination of parental rights trial must be conducted in person.