In State v. Gould, 241 Conn. 1, 11-14, 695 A.2d 1022 (1997), the defendants argued that the court violated Practice Book 863, now 42-26, when it granted the jury's request to view the out-of-court videotaped testimony of a particular witness in the jury room during deliberations. The defendants in Gould argued that in granting the jury's request, the court violated Practice Book 863, now 42-26, which our Supreme Court stated "generally provides for the rereading of testimony in open court under circumstances . . . in which the court reporter must read back trial testimony from stenographic notes or locate and play back a recorded voice tape of such testimony on a tape player." State v. Gould, supra, at 12. In concluding that the court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the jurors to view prerecorded videotaped testimony, the court reasoned that" "if jurors are to decide cases, as their oaths require them to, according to the evidence before them, or according to the evidence given them in court, why should they not, when they have forgotten a material part of the evidence, be permitted to make use of an available and generally most reliable means of recalling it? It is the policy of the law that every tribunal for the trial of civil or criminal causes should have open to it the best legitimate means of acquiring such knowledge of the law and the facts as will enable it to decide the cases before it fairly and intelligently." Id., at 12-13. The Court concluded that a trial court's actions in a context similar to the present case did not constitute an abuse of discretion, nor did it mandate plain error review. Practice Book 60-5. "It is the policy of the law that every tribunal for the trial of civil or criminal causes should have open to it the best legitimate means of acquiring such knowledge of the law and the facts as will enable it to decide the cases before it fairly and intelligently." State v. Gould, supra at 13, quoting State v. Rubaka, 82 Conn. 59, 67, 72 A. 566 (1909). In Gould, where the trial court permitted the jury to review edited video testimony of the state's principal witness unsupervised in the jury room, the court stated that "since we have allowed transcripts of testimony to be read to the jury, the trial court's actions here did not violate our rules of practice." State v. Gould, supra at 15.