State v. Freeman

****************************************************** The ‘‘officially released’’ date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it was released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the beginning of all time periods for filing postopinion motions and petitions for certification is the ‘‘officially released’’ date appearing in the opinion. In no event will any such motions be accepted before the ‘‘officially released’’ date. All opinions are subject to modification and technical correction prior to official publication in the Connecti- cut Reports and Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event of discrepancies between the electronic version of an opinion and the print version appearing in the Connecticut Law Journal and subsequently in the Con- necticut Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest print version is to be considered authoritative. The syllabus and procedural history accompanying the opinion as it appears on the Commission on Official Legal Publications Electronic Bulletin Board Service and in the Connecticut Law Journal and bound volumes of official reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the State, State of Connecticut, and may not be repro- duced and distributed without the express written per- mission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ******************************************************  STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. JASON FREEMAN (SC 18909) Rogers, C. J., and Palmer, Zarella, Eveleigh, McDonald and Espinosa, Js. Argued September 16—officially released November 5, 2013 Lisa A. Vanderhoof, assigned counsel, for the appel- lant (defendant). Linda Currie-Zeffiro, assistant state’s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were John C. Smriga, state’s attor- ney, and Pamela J. Esposito, senior assistant state’s attorney, for the appellee (state).  Opinion PER CURIAM. In this certified appeal, the defendant, Jason Freeman, appeals from the judgment of the Appellate Court, which affirmed the judgment of con- viction, rendered after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-134 (a) (1), assault of a victim sixty years of age or older in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a- 59a (a) (1), assault in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53a-59 (a) (3), and carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of General Statutes § 29- 35 (a). The defendant proceeded to trial after his motions to suppress certain evidence were denied. We granted the defendant’s petition for certification to appeal, limited to the following issue: ‘‘Did the Appellate Court properly conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it reopened a pretrial suppres- sion hearing and permitted the state to present addi- tional evidence?’’ State v. Freeman, 303 Conn. 922, 923, 34 A.3d 395 (2012). We answer this question in the affirmative and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the Appellate Court. The relevant facts and procedural history giving rise to this appeal are set forth in detail in State v. Freeman, 132 Conn. App. 438, 440–44, 33 A.3d 256 (2011). To summarize, following the judgment of conviction, the defendant appealed to the Appellate Court, claiming, inter alia, that the trial court had abused its discretion in reopening the suppression hearing to allow the state to introduce additional testimony regarding the devel- opment of the defendant as a suspect. Id., 443. The Appellate Court rejected the defendant’s argument that State v. Allen, 205 Conn. 370, 385, 533 A.2d 559 (1987), which held that the trial court had improperly allowed the state to reopen its case-in-chief to establish an essential element of the crime charged after the defen- dant’s motion for judgment of acquittal had been denied, applied to the present case. State v. Freeman, supra, 445. The Appellate Court observed that Allen, which this court implicitly had limited to its facts, was factually and legally distinguishable from the present case. Id., 445–46. The Appellate Court then concluded that ‘‘the reopening of pretrial testimony did not unduly prejudice the defendant nor reward the state for its laxity, but rather, aided the court in its search for truth. As the [trial] court acknowledged in its decision to reopen the suppression hearing, the state had testimony that would have addressed the evidentiary deficiency at its ‘fingertips,’ but appeared to merely have inadver- tently excluded that testimony from the pretrial hear- ing.’’ Id., 446. Accordingly, the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court. This certified appeal followed. Upon our examination of the record and briefs and our consideration of the arguments of the parties, we conclude that the judgment of the Appellate Court should be affirmed on the certified issue. Because the Appellate Court properly resolved this issue in an opin- ion that fully addresses all arguments raised in this appeal, we adopt it as a proper statement of the issue and the applicable law concerning that issue. It would serve no useful purpose for us to repeat the discussion contained therein. See Anderson v. Commissioner of Correction, 308 Conn. 456, 462, 64 A.3d 325 (2013). The judgment of the Appellate Court is affirmed.