Given the brevity of the trial court's questions and the fact that the integrity of the array was not challenged at trial, we conclude that the trial court's questioning of Heanue, although unnecessary, was unlikely to influence the jury's verdict or its perception of the judge's neutrality. See, e.g., Statev.Iban C., supra, 275 Conn. 655 (concluding that trial court's brief questions on discrete issue did not contain ''a suggestion of advocacy''); State v. Rosario, 209 Conn.App. 550, 565, 267 A.3d 946 (''the court's questions did not prejudice the defendant because the relevant elicited facts were not truly in dispute''), cert. denied, 342 Conn. 901, 270 A.3d 98 (2022). Likewise, the trial court's short series of questions to the defendant's expert witnesses did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
James M. Ralls, assistant state's attorney, in opposition. The defendant's petition for certification to appeal from the Appellate Court, 209 Conn. App. 550, 267 A.3d 946 (2021), is denied.