holding “that where an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal”
How later courts described this case
- holding “that where an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal”
- explaining that, in both civil and criminal matters, in order for a new rule of law to apply retroactively to a case pending on direct appeal, the issue had to be preserved at "all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal”
- stating “where an appellate decision overrules prior law and announces a new principle, unless the decision specifically declares the ruling to be prospective only, the new rule is to be applied retroactively to cases where the issue in question is properly preserved at all stages of adjudication up to and including any direct appeal”
- noting general rule that only a party whose case remains pending on direct appeal is entitled to benefit of newly announced rule of law
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
McDERMOTT, Justice,
dissenting.
Character evidence is substantive evidence. It is both relevant and important. It should be presented by and from a source knowledgeable as to its truth. While it is certainly true that an arrest in and of itself proves nothing, it is also true that a series of arrests, (not uncommon in this day) may be pause to consider the full knowledge the witness has of another’s reputation. One arrested for a laundry list of offenses in the community in which he lives may indeed be innocent of all, yet the knowledge of such arrests should at least be considered in establishing the accuracy of the prof erred reputation evidence. One who *236 comes to laud the estimious reputation of another should at least be aware of all that makes a name.
Because I believe that, this Court erred in Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 188 , 436 A.2d 607 (1981), I must dissent from the retroactive application of that decision.
I join with Mr. Justice Nix in his analysis of retroactivity.