" Id., at 538, 918 A.2d 998 ; see also id. ("[e]xpert testimony is required when the question involved goes beyond the field of the ordinary knowledge and experience of judges or jurors" (internal quotation marks omitted)). Likewise, in State v. Hargett , 196 Conn. App. 228, 246–47, 229 A.3d 1047, cert. granted, 335 Conn. 952, 238 A.3d 730 (2020), this court concluded that the trial court properly excluded a toxicology report showing the presence of phencyclidine (PCP) in the victim's body at the time of death, which report the defendant sought to have admitted as a business record. In that case, the defendant "did not disclose an expert to testify or to explain how people behave or act under the influence of PCP or how the victim acted or could have acted under the influence of PCP"; id., at 244, 229 A.3d 1047 ; nor did he "explain why the presence of PCP in the victim's body was relevant to self-defense and his intent or otherwise lay a foundation for the admission of the toxicology report."
And (3) "[d]id the Appellate Court correctly conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declining to sanction the state for its late disclosure of the murder weapon and related materials?" State v. Hargett , 335 Conn. 952, 952–53, 238 A.3d 730 (2020). I
" (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Hargett , 196 Conn. App. 228, 265–66, 229 A.3d 1047, cert. granted, 335 Conn. 952, 238 A.3d 730 (2020). "Ultimately, [t]he issue is whether the prosecutor's conduct so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process."