State v. Armadore

Summary

The court held that the Appellate Court should generally permit supplemental briefing when a new constitutional rule arises during a pending appeal, but that its failure to do so was harmless because the defendant’s unpreserved cell-site-location claim could not satisfy the harmlessness requirement for constitutional error review. The court also held that the defendant preserved his hearsay objection and that the challenged testimony was admissible to show its effect on the hearer; alternatively, any error was harmless. The conviction was affirmed.