would result in an ambush of the trial court by permitting the defendant to raise a claim on appeal that his or her counsel expressly had abandoned in the trial court.” State v. Holness, 289 Conn. 535, 543, 958 A.2d 754 (2008). “It is well settled that a criminal defendant may waive rights guaranteed to him under the constitution. . . . The mechanism by which a right may be waived, however, varies according to the right at stake. . . . For certain fundamental rights, the defendant must personally make an informed waiver. . . . For other rights, however, waiver may be effected by action of counsel. . . . When a party consents to or expresses satisfaction with an issue at trial, claims arising from that issue are deemed waived and may not be reviewed on appeal. See, e.g., [id., 544-45] (<HOLDING>); State v. Fabricatore, supra, [281 Conn. 481]
holding that trial court is not required to give limiting instruction when defendant did not object at first opportunity because evidence admitted for all purposes holding that limiting instruction was insufficient to avoid confrontation clause violation where codefendants powerfully incriminating extrajudicial statement was admitted in joint trial with petitioner holding that defendant waived claim under crawford v washington supra 541 us 36 that trial court improperly admitted recording of conversation in violation of confrontation clause of federal constitution when counsel agreed to limiting instruction regarding hearsay statements introduced by state on crossexamination recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis holding of crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay