These claims are thus unpreserved, and we decline to review them on appeal. See, e.g., State v. Qayyum, 344 Conn. 302, 312, 279 A.3d 172 (2022) ("[D]efense counsel’s failure to object to those questions necessarily means that he did not articulate his claim regarding those questions with sufficient clarity to put the trial court on notice. As a result, we conclude that the defendant failed to preserve this evidentiary claim, and, therefore, we do not review it.").
Accordingly, this claim is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. See, e.g., State v. Qayyum , 201 Conn. App. 864, 872 n.2, 242 A.3d 500 (2020), aff'd, 344 Conn. 302, 279 A.3d 172 (2022). Furthermore, the defendant cannot obtain review of his unpreserved evidentiary claim by labeling it with a constitutional tag.
(Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Qayyum , 344 Conn. 302, 310–11, 279 A.3d 172 (2022).
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Qayyum , 344 Conn. 302, 315, 279 A.3d 172 (2022) ; see also State v. Hazard , 201 Conn. App. 46, 70–71, 240 A.3d 749, cert. denied, 336 Conn. 901, 242 A.3d 711 (2020). Former Chief Justice Rogers authored a concurring opinion to express her "disagreement with the necessity for the special evidentiary rule of Holliman and to suggest that, when the issue squarely presents itself in a future appeal, this court abandon that rule and instead hold, as did the United States Supreme Court in Perry v. New Hampshire , [supra, 565 U.S. 228, 132 S.Ct. 716], that potentially unreliable eyewitness identifications resulting from suggestive procedures undertaken by private actors should be evaluated like any other potentially unreliable evidence—namely, by a fully informed, properly instructed jury within the confines of a trial employing the usual array of constitutional safeguards."