(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Galarza , 97 Conn. App. 444, 464, 906 A.2d 685, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 936, 909 A.2d 962 (2006) ; see also State v. Cerreta , 260 Conn. 251, 261, 796 A.2d 1176 (2002) (same); State v. Hargett , supra, 196 Conn. App. at 246–47, 229 A.3d 1047 (court properly excluded toxicology report where defendant failed to establish relevance of report, and, because "court did not abuse its discretion with respect to its evidentiary rulings ... [it] did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to present a defense"). Pursuant to Golding , we may review an unpreserved constitutional claim "only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) the record is adequate to review the alleged claim of error; (2) the claim is of constitutional magnitude alleging the violation of a fundamental right; (3) the alleged constitutional violation ... exists and ... deprived the defendant of a fair trial; and (4) if subject to harmless error analysis, the state has failed to demonstrate harmlessness of the alleged constitutional violation beyond a reasonable doubt."

(Emphasis omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Galarza, 97 Conn.App. 444, 464, 906 A.2d 685, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 936, 909 A.2d 962 (2006).

It is axiomatic that, when a criminal defendant's constitutional rights have been violated, the state bears the burden of establishing lack of harm beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Galarza, 97 Conn.App. 444, 450, 906 A.2d 685, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 936, 909 A.2d 962 (2006). In my view, the state has not met that burden in the present case.

"A prosecutor may respond to the argument of defense counsel during rebuttal." State v. Galarza, 97 Conn. App. 444, 471, 906 A.2d 685, cert. denied, 280 Conn. 936, 909 A.2d 962 (2006). The defendant asks, however, that we reconsider the appropriate manner in which to respond to an improper argument.

The petitioner, Luis Galarza seeks habeas corpus relief from convictions, after a jury trial, for capital felony murder and two counts of murder, for which crimes he serves a total, effective sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. These convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, State v. Galarza, 97 Conn.App. 444, 906 A.2d 685 (2006); cert. denied, 280 Conn. 936, 909 A.2d 962 (2006). The petitioner filed another habeas action previously attacking these convictions in a case denoted as CV06-4001363.