explaining the Supreme Court’s view in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), that, although “some ‘inequity arguably results from according the benefit of a new rule to the parties of the case in which it is announced but not to other litigants similarly situated in the trial or appellate process who have raised the same issue,’ the Court regarded ‘the fact that the parties involved are chance beneficiaries as an insignificant cost for the adherence to sound principles of decision-making’”
How later courts described this case
- explaining the Supreme Court’s view in Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297 (1967), that, although “some ‘inequity arguably results from according the benefit of a new rule to the parties of the case in which it is announced but not to other litigants similarly situated in the trial or appellate process who have raised the same issue,’ the Court regarded ‘the fact that the parties involved are chance beneficiaries as an insignificant cost for the adherence to sound principles of decision-making’”
- explaining that uncorroborated accomplice witness testimony can be legally sufficient under Jackson v. Virginia
- recognizing that in Griffith, the Supreme Court “repudiated the Stovall doctrine of retroactivity and its underlying rationale”
- recognizing that Griffith does not bind the states as to the retroactivity of new rules under state law and applying Stovall
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MANSFIELD, J.
dissented with note:
For the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinion in Blake v. State, 971 S.W.2d 451 (Tex.Crim.App.1998), I respectfully dissent.