Latest Case: State v. Martin (Criminal Law)

Rethinking Retroactivity in Light of the Supreme Court’s Jury Unanimity Requirement

MICHAEL C. DORF

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Monday in Ramos v. Louisiana, in which it held that the federal Constitution forbids states from convicting defendants except by a unanimous jury, Cornell law professor Michael C. Dorf discusses the Court’s jurisprudence on retroactivity. Dorf highlights some costs and benefits of retroactivity and argues that the Court’s refusal to issue advisory opinions limits its ability to resolve retroactivity questions in a way that responds to all the relevant considerations.

Read More

State v. Martin

Docket: SCWC-14-0001090

Opinion Date: April 22, 2020

Judge: Sabrina S. McKenna

Areas of Law: Criminal Law

The Supreme Court primarily affirmed the judgment of the intermediate court of appeals (ICA) affirming the judgment of the circuit court convicting Defendant of various counts, including attempted murder of a police officer, and sentencing Defendant to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole plus ten years, holding that the issues Defendant raised on certiorari lacked merit. In his application for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court Defendant raised five questions, including the issue of whether the ICA committed grave errors of law and fact when it held that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Defendant's suicide attempt the day after the shooting. The Supreme Court addressed Defendant's question regarding his suicide attempt, holding (1) evidence of a suicide or attempted suicide is not automatically admissible as relevant to a defendant's consciousness of guilt, and (2) the circuit court correctly ruled that the evidence was admissible as probative of Defendant's identity as to the person who had committed the offenses charged. Further, the Court noted plain error affecting Defendant's substantial rights with respect to the lack of a merger instruction on Defendant's firearms convictions and remanded the relevant counts to the circuit court for further proceedings.