State v. Armadore

Summary

The court held that the Appellate Court should ordinarily permit supplemental briefing when a newly announced constitutional rule creates an unpreserved claim in a pending appeal, but its failure to do so here was harmless because the claim could not satisfy the harmlessness prong of the governing review framework. The court also held that the defendant adequately preserved his hearsay objection and that the challenged testimony was admissible to show its effect on the witness, with any error independently harmless. The judgment affirming the murder conviction was affirmed.