Opinion ID: 2276127
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: fair warning.

Text: Just as the Ex Post Facto Clause precludes retrospective application of new legislation, e.g., H.B. 108, to conduct that was not illegal when committed, the retrospective application by a court of an unforeseeable change in the common law or in the interpretation of a statute to the detriment of a criminal defendant violates the fair warning requirement of the Due Process Clause. U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV § 1. A fair warning violation occurs [w]hen a[n] ... unforeseeable state-court [sic] construction of a criminal statute is applied retroactively to subject a person to criminal liability for past conduct, the effect [being] to deprive him of due process of law in the sense of fair warning that his contemplated conduct constitutes a crime. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 354-55, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 1703, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964) . . . . See also Gall v. Parker, 231 F.3d 265, 305-06 (6th Cir.2000) (detrimental application of new judicial interpretation of extreme emotional disturbance defense to conduct occurring when more favorable interpretation was in effect violated fair warning requirement). The fair warning requirement also applies to changes in common law principles that are `unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.' Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 460-62, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 1699-1700, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001) (state court's abolishment of common law year and a day rule did not violate fair warning requirement) (quoting Bouie, supra, at 354, 84 S.Ct. at 1697). Walker v. Commonwealth, Ky., 127 S.W.3d 596, 603 (2004). Thus, our decision to overrule Hollis and criminalize the killing of a viable fetus cannot be applied retrospectively to Appellee's conduct. [9] Accordingly, we affirm the result reached by the Court of Appeals, but for a different reason than expressed in its opinion. LAMBERT, C.J.; GRAVES, and JOHNSTONE, JJ., concur. KELLER, J., concurs by separate opinion, with STUMBO, J., joining that concurring opinion. WINTERSHEIMER, J., concurs by separate opinion.