In State v. Arluk, 75 Conn. App. 181, 191-93, 815 A.2d 694 (2003), the defendant claimed on appeal that the trial court improperly had relieved the state of its burden of proving an element of the crime of violation of a protective order, to wit, the fact that a valid protective order existed. Id., 191. The defendant in Arluk sought review of his unpreserved instructional error claim under State v. Golding. Id. The Court held that the defendant, by his conduct at trial, had implicitly waived his claim and could not satisfy Golding's third prong. Id., 193. The Arluk court stated: "We are mindful that in the usual Golding situation, the defendant raises a claim on appeal which, while not preserved at trial, at least was not waived at trial. State v. Cooper, 38 Conn. App. 661, 667, 664 A.2d 773, cert. denied, 235 Conn. 908, 665 A.2d 903 (1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1214, 116 S. Ct. 1837, 134 L. Ed. 2d 940 (1996). [In Cooper] we held that a defendant could not satisfy the third prong of Golding where he had implicitly waived at trial a challenge to the alleged constitutional deprivation that was the basis of his claim on appeal. Therefore, a defendant cannot prevail under Golding on a claim that he implicitly waived at trial." State v. Arluk, supra, 75 Conn. App. 192.