State v. Edelman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
****************************************************** 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 Connecticut 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 Connecticut 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 reproduced and distributed without the express written permission of the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial Branch, State of Connecticut. ****************************************************** STATE OF CONNECTICUT v. STEVEN EDELMAN (SC 16623) Sullivan, C. J., Borden, Katz, Palmer and Vertefeuille, Js. Argued January 6 officially released February 18, 2003 David K. Jaffe, for the appellant (defendant). Denise B. Smoker, assistant state s attorney, with whom, on the brief, were Patricia M. Froehlich, state s attorney, Keith Currier, deputy assistant state s attorney, and Lonnie Braxton, assistant state s attorney, for the appellee (state). Opinion PER CURIAM. The defendant, Steven Edelman, appeals, following our grant of certification to appeal, from the judgment of the Appellate Court reversing the trial court s judgment of conviction of violating the state building code, as prohibited by General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 29-263,1 and remanding the case for a new trial. State v. Edelman, 64 Conn. App. 480, 780 A.2d 980 (2001). We granted the defendant s petition for certification to appeal limited to the following issue: Under the plain error doctrine, should the defendant s conviction be reversed and judgment directed in his favor, on the ground that there was no evidence that the defendant unlawfully continued to work under § 118.2 of the state building code? State v. Edelman, 258 Conn. 940, 786 A.2d 427 (2001). After examining the entire record on appeal and considering the briefs and oral arguments of the parties, we have determined that the appeal in this case should be dismissed on the ground that certification was improvidently granted. The appeal is dismissed. 1 General Statutes (Rev. to 1997) § 29-263 provides in relevant part: Except as provided in subsection (h) of section 29-252a, after October 1, 1970, no building or structure shall be constructed or altered until an application has been filed with the building official and a permit issued. . . .
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
