" See footnote 3 of this opinion. Second, on our examination of the court's charge discussing constructive possession; see footnote 3 of this opinion; we find it substantially similar to those examined in State v. Fasano , 88 Conn. App. 17, 22–24 n.7, 868 A.2d 79, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904, 876 A.2d 15 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1101, 126 S. Ct. 1037, 163 L. Ed. 2d 873 (2006), and State v. Elijah , 42 Conn. App. 687, 691–92, 682 A.2d 506, cert. denied, 239 Conn. 936, 684 A.2d 709 (1996). In both cases, this court concluded that those instructions sufficiently explained to the jury the elements of the crimes charged.
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fasano , 88 Conn. App. 17, 36–37, 868 A.2d 79, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904, 876 A.2d 15 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1101, 126 S. Ct. 1037, 163 L. Ed. 2d 873 (2006). Section 4-3 of the Connecticut Code of Evidence provides: "Relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or surprise, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."
" (Citations omitted; emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fasano , 88 Conn. App. 17, 35–37, 868 A.2d 79, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904, 876 A.2d 15 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1101, 126 S. Ct. 1037, 163 L. Ed. 2d 873 (2006). Here, having reviewed the available record, we conclude that the court properly determined that the audio and/or video recordings offered by the defendant at the hearing were not relevant to the court's determination of whether to grant the application for the protection order.
” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fasano, 88 Conn.App. 17, 25, 868 A.2d 79, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904, 876 A.2d 15 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1101, 126 S.Ct. 1037, 163 L.Ed.2d 873 (2006). “Where the defendant is not in exclusive possession of the premises where the narcotics are found, it may not be inferred that [the defendant] knew of the presence of the narcotics and had control of them, unless there are other incriminating statements or circumstances tending to buttress such an inference.”
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Fasano, 88 Conn.App. 17, 25, 868 A.2d 79, cert. denied, 274 Conn. 904, 876 A.2d 15 (2005), cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1101, 126 S.Ct. 1037, 163 L.Ed.2d 873 (2006).