State v. Nakata8/2/1994
-/REF--> 828 P.2d 267 (1992), which had been decided subsequent to Ikezawa's trial. Balauro had departed from previous precedent by interpreting HRPP 48(c)(6) to exclude certain periods of time from the six-month period within which a trial is required. 73 Haw. at 73, 828 P.2d at 268-69. In Ikezawa, this court held that where substantial prejudice results from retrospective application of a new decision, it would be applied prospectively only. 75 Haw. at 220-21, 857 P.2d at 599.
In Ikezawa, we reasoned that "the Constitution neither prohibits nor requires retrospective effect. . . . Free to apply decisions with or without retroactivity, the Court's task is to exercise its discretion, weighing the merits and demerits of retroactive application of the particular rule." Id. at 220, 857 P.2d at 598 (citing State v. Santiago, 53 Haw. 254, 268, 492 P.2d 657, 665 (1971)).
The Ikezawa court recognized the need to consider different factors in determining whether to apply a decision retroactively. We noted that the United States Supreme Court "has given consideration to three factors: (a) the purpose to be served by the newly announced rule[;] (b) the extent of reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards[;] and (c) the effect on the administration of Justice of a retroactive application of the new standards." Id. (citing Santiago, 53 Haw. at 268-69, 492 P.2d at 665-66). We stated that, alternatively, "'factors to be considered include: Prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retroactive operation will further or retard its operation; interests in the administration of Justice and the integrity of the judicial process.'" Id. (citing Russell v. Blackwell, 53 Haw. 274, 277, 492 P.2d 953, 956 (1972)). We emphasized that implicit in these factors is the concept of fairness. Id.
Relying on the selective-retroactive doctrine set forth in Santiago and Russell, the court in Ikezawa declined to retrospectively apply its holding in Balauro, applying instead case law applicable prior to Ikezawa's trial. The selective-retroactive doctrine in Santiago and Russell was based on United States Supreme Court authority from the 1960s enunciated in, among other cases, Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 14 L. Ed. 2d 601, 85 S. Ct. 1731 (1965); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 16 L. Ed. 2d 882, 86 S. Ct. 1772 (1966); and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199, 87 S. Ct. 1967 (1967). See generally R. Fallon & D. Meltzer, New Law, Non-Retroactivity, and Constitutional Remedies, 104 Harv. L. Rev. 1731 (1991). Under this doctrine, a court "could deny retroactive effect to a newly announced rule of criminal law" based upon factors such as "the purpose of the new rule, the reliance placed upon the previous view of the law, and the effect on the administration of Justice of a retrospective application of the new rule." Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 125 L. Ed. 2d 74, U.S. , 113 S. Ct. 2510, 2516 (1993) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The United States Supreme Court, however, has overruled its previous precedents in the non-retroactivity area and now applies retroactively all its new criminal decisions whose holdings are applied to the appealing party. In Harper, the Supreme Court recently confirmed that it "overruled Linkletter in Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 93 L. Ed. 2d 649, 107 S. Ct. 708 (1987), and eliminated limits on retroactiv
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Hawaii DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|