In State v. Foreshaw, 214 Conn. 540, 546, 572 A.2d 1006 (1990) the Court held that an unpreserved claim respecting a very similar charge on extreme emotional disturbance was not reviewable. The court rejected review under State v. Golding, 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989), because "claims of error pertaining to the inadequacy of instructions on an affirmative defense do not raise a constitutional question." State v. Foreshaw, supra, 546. Review in Foreshaw also was rejected under the plain error rule of Practice Book 4185, now 60-5, because the challenged language, when viewed in the context of the entire charge, did not cause such a "manifest injustice to the defendant so as to impair the effectiveness or integrity of the trial." State v. Foreshaw, supra, 547.