State v. Stephenson

Summary

The court held that the Appellate Court improperly reversed the defendant’s convictions on a distinct sufficiency-of-the-evidence theory that the defendant had not raised and that the parties had not been given an opportunity to brief. Although an appellate court may sometimes raise an issue sua sponte, it must provide meaningful supplemental briefing or argument before deciding it. The judgment was reversed and the case was remanded for consideration of the claims actually raised, with any renewed sua sponte review conducted consistently with that requirement.