The defendant brings to our attention the fact that our Supreme Court has continued to employ a standard derived from federal cases that predate even Youngblood's predecessor, California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984), to decide cases involving the loss or destruction of evidence by the state. See, e.g., State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986). We are required to follow Youngblood, however, in analyzing the defendant's claim under federal law.

The plaintiffs also claim that the defendant violated Practice Book § 4013 by not including this issue in his preliminary statement of issues on appeal. The defendant's failure to raise this issue in his preliminary statement of issues does not preclude its review unless the plaintiffs are prejudiced thereby. State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986). We conclude that the plaintiffs are not prejudiced by our review of this issue.

Their failure to identify this issue in their preliminary statement of issues does not preclude review unless the opposing party is prejudiced thereby. See State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986). Because both parties have fully briefed and argued the issue, we do not feel that Curcio would be prejudiced by our review of this issue.

Practice Book 4013 provides that an appellee's failure to cross appeal or identify an issue in a preliminary statement of issues will preclude review of the issue if the appellant is prejudiced by the appellee's failure to follow the Practice Book provision. See State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986); State v. Hawis, 10 Conn. App. 217, 231-32 n. 2, 522 A.2d 323 (1987). In the present case, we do not find that there would be prejudice to the plaintiff as he had an adequate opportunity to address the issue in his reply brief.

Although our appellate courts have in the past declined to address issues not properly presented to the court or included in a preliminary or amended statement of issues; Robert S. Weiss Co. v. Mullins, 196 Conn. 614, 617, 495 A.2d 1006 (1985); Practice Book 4013 (formerly 3012), effective October 1, 1986, and made applicable to pending appeals by Practice Book 4189 (formerly 3166), does not preclude an appellant from raising issues not included in the preliminary statement of issues unless the opposing party is prejudiced thereby. State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986). Although the defendants do not assert that they have been prejudiced by the failure of the state to include such issues in its preliminary statement of issues, we find that the claims nevertheless evade appellate review for other reasons discussed herein.

The state does not argue, nor do we consider, that it would be prejudiced by our review of this issue. See State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986). A

Furthermore, the defendant failed to file a preliminary statement of issues which asserted this alternative ground in support of the conclusion of the trial court, as required by Practice Book 4013 (formerly 3012). Cf. State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986).

This procedural rule applies to this appeal. Practice Book 4189 (formerly 3166); State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986) The defendant's claim is effectively disposed of by State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 249-54, 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084, 104 S.Ct. 1455, 79 L.Ed.2d 772, reh. denied, 466 U.S. 954, 104 S.Ct. 2163, 80 L.Ed.2d 547 (1984).

Four of these issues were not included in the respondent's preliminary statement of issues as required by Practice Book 3012(a) (now 4013 [a]). Although our appellate courts have in the past declined to address issues not properly presented to the court; Robert S. Weiss Co. v. Mullins, 196 Conn. 614, 617, 495 A.2d 1006 (1985); revised Practice Book 4013 effective October 1, 1986, and made applicable to pending appeals by Practice Book 4189, does not preclude an appellant from raising such issues in a brief unless the opposing party is prejudiced thereby. State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 568 n. 3, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986). Although DCYS does not assert that it has been prejudiced by the failure of the respondent to include such issues in her preliminary statement of issues, we find that they nevertheless evade appellate review for other reasons. Four of the respondent's issues were not briefed properly, as counsel has not researched the issues or formulated any legal arguments thereunder.

The defendant acknowledges that no such rule now exists in Connecticut. State v. McIver, 201 Conn. 559, 566-67, 518 A.2d 1368 (1986); State v. McLucas, 172 Conn. 542, 561, 375 A.2d 1014, cert. denied, 434 U.S. 855, 98 S.Ct. 174, 54 L.Ed.2d 126 (1977); State v. Simms, 170 Conn. 206, 211, 365 A.2d 821, cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954, 96 S.Ct. 1732, 48 L.Ed.2d 199 (1976); State v. Reis, 33 Conn. App. 521, 526-27, 636 A.2d 872, cert. denied, 229 Conn. 901, 640 A.2d 118 (1994). The defendant argues, however, that this court should adopt a rule similar to that adopted by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Burns, 684 F.2d 1066 (2d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1174, 103 S.Ct. 823, 74 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983).