Opinion ID: 2133105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: retroactive application of state v. burlison

Text: Because Redmond killed Clinton before State v. Burlison, supra , was decided, he contends that Burlison cannot be applied to his case. Redmond argues that a retroactive application of Burlison to his case violates due process because the State failed to prove malice beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. Thus, if Burlison had not been retroactively applied to his case, under the law before Burlison, Redmond would have been convicted of manslaughter instead of second degree murder. Since 1978, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-304 (Reissue 1995) has provided in part: (1) A person commits murder in the second degree if he causes the death of a person intentionally, but without premeditation. Before 1977, the second degree murder statute defined such a killing as one done purposely and maliciously. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-402 (Reissue 1975). Despite the statutory change in the definition of second degree murder, this court continued to include malice as a necessary element of second degree murder until 1998. See, e.g., State v. Myers, 244 Neb. 905, 510 N.W.2d 58 (1994); State v. Manzer, 246 Neb. 536, 519 N.W.2d 558 (1994); and State v. Ryan, 249 Neb. 218, 543 N.W.2d 128 (1996). These decisions, however, were not without disagreement. See, e.g., State v. Ryan, supra (Gerrard, J., dissenting; Connolly, J., dissenting; Wright, J., dissenting). In 1998, we overruled those cases which held that malice was a necessary element of second degree murder. State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 583 N.W.2d 31 (1998). In State v. Burlison, supra , the appellant sought postconviction relief on the basis that he pled guilty to second degree murder when the operative information failed to include the element of malice. We determined that malice is not a necessary element of second degree murder under § 28-304 and overruled those cases which held otherwise. In reaching the determination that malice is not a necessary element of second degree murder, we emphasized that under the plain and ordinary meaning of § 28-304, malice was not included as an element of the crime and had been removed from the statutory definition in 1977. See 1977 Neb. Laws, L.B. 38 (operative July 1, 1978). We further noted that there are no common-law crimes in Nebraska, and we then concluded that our prior decisions interpreting § 28-304 where clearly erroneous. We did not apply our holding in Burlison in a solely prospective manner. Instead, we applied the holding of the case to the appellant and affirmed his conviction. We have also directed that the law as established in Burlison be applied to a crime that occurred before Burlison was decided. See State v. White, 257 Neb. 943, 601 N.W.2d 731 (1999). But, Redmond contends that because a retroactive application of Burlison makes the killing of Clinton a greater crime than it was when committed, a retroactive application of Burlison denies him due process under Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964), and the recent case of Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001). In Bouie v. City of Columbia, supra , the petitioners were sit-in demonstrators who refused to leave the premises after they were requested to do so. The petitioners were convicted under a criminal trespass statute providing that `[e]very entry upon the lands of another ... after notice... prohibiting such entry, shall be a misdemeanor...' 378 U.S. at 349 n. 1, 84 S.Ct. 1697. In affirming the convictions, the South Carolina Supreme Court construed the statute to cover not only the act of entry on the premises of another after receiving notice not to enter, but also the act of remaining on the premises after receiving notice to leave. The U.S. Supreme court reversed, and stated: [A]n unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute, applied retroactively, operates precisely like an ex post facto law, such as Art. I, § 10, of the Constitution forbids. An ex post facto law has been defined by this Court as one that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action, or that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. ... If a state legislature is barred by the Ex Post Facto Clause from passing such a law, it must follow that a State Supreme court is barred by the Due Process Clause from achieving precisely the same result by judicial construction.... If a judicial construction of a criminal statute is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue, it must not be given retroactive effect. (Emphasis in original.) 378 U.S. at 353-54, 84 S.Ct. 1697. The Court emphasized that the issue was whether the construction gave the petitioners fair warning that their conduct was a crime. The Court noted that the decision of the South Carolina Supreme Court had not even the slightest support in prior South Carolina decisions, was inconsistent with the law in other states, and was inconsistent with the plain meaning of the criminal statute. 378 U.S. at 356, 84 S.Ct. 1697. So, the Court reversed, finding that the petitioners' due process rights had been violated. The U.S. Supreme Court clarified the holding of Bouie in Rogers v. Tennessee, supra . In Rogers, the petitioner was convicted under Tennessee's criminal homicide statute. Under the common law of Tennessee, a year and a day rule provided that no defendant could be convicted of murder unless his or her victim had died by the defendant's act within a year and a day of that act. 532 U.S. at ___, 121 S.Ct. at 1696. The criminal homicide statute made no mention of the year-and-a-day rule. The petitioner appealed and contended that the year-and-a-day rule applied to his case. The Tennessee Supreme Court examined the year-and-a-day rule, determined that the original reasons for the rule no longer existed, and abolished it. State v. Rogers, 992 S.W.2d 393 (Tenn. 1999). The court then held that retroactive application of its decision abolishing the year-and-a-day rule did not violate due process. Id. On appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, the petitioner relied on Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U.S. 347, 84 S.Ct. 1697, 12 L.Ed.2d 894 (1964), and argued that the Due Process and the Ex Post Facto Clauses prohibited retroactive application of the judicial abolishment of the year-and-a-day rule. The Court disagreed with this contention and stated that to the extent the petitioner argued that the Due Process Clause incorporates the specific prohibitions of the Ex Post Facto Clause, he misread Bouie. The Court recognized that Bouie contained some expansive language that was suggestive of the broad interpretation for which the petitioner argued. Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, ___, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 1698, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001). The Court then determined that language in Bouie stating that the Due Process Clause operated in the same manner as the Ex Post Facto Clause was dicta. The Court stressed that retroactive judicial decisionmaking is not analyzed by reference to the Ex Post Facto Clause, but is instead analyzed in accordance with the more basic and general principle of fair warning under the Due Process Clause. The Court then stated:  Bouie restricted due process limitations on the retroactive application of judicial interpretations of criminal statutes to those that are `unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue.' 532 U.S. at ___, 121 S. Ct. at 1700. When examining the facts of the petitioner's case, the Court determined that the Tennessee Supreme Court's abolition of the year-and-a-day rule was not unexpected and indefensible. The Court noted that a majority of states had abolished the rule and that the rule had only a tenuous foothold as part of the criminal law of the State of Tennessee. 532 U.S. at ___, 121 S.Ct. at 1701. The rule had never served as a ground of decision in any prosecution for murder in the State and had only been mentioned in dicta in Tennessee cases. Under Rogers, the U.S. Constitution does not require that retroactive judicial decisions be analyzed with reference to the Ex Post Facto Clause. Instead, a judicial decision interpreting a statute may be applied retroactively unless the decision denies due process by being both unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue. In this case, the change of law in State v. Burlison, 255 Neb. 190, 583 N.W.2d 31 (1998), cannot be said to be indefensible. Indefensible is defined as incapable of being maintained as right or valid or incapable of being justified or excused. Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged 1147 (1993). Thus, in a case such as Bouie, where a court interprets a statute in a surprising manner that has little in the way of legal support, the interpretation could not be applied retroactively. Our decision in Burlison was not such a case. The basis of the Burlison decision was the plain language of § 28-304. We recognized in Burlison that it was improper to read the element of malice into that statute. In Nebraska, all crimes are statutory, and no act is criminal unless the Legislature has in express terms declared it to be so. State v. Burnett, 254 Neb. 771, 579 N.W.2d 513 (1998); State v. Parks, 253 Neb. 939, 573 N.W.2d 453 (1998). See State v. Burlison, supra . It is not within the province of the courts to read a meaning into a statute that is not there, nor read anything direct and plain out of a statute. State v. Burlison, supra ; State v. Atkins, 250 Neb. 315, 549 N.W.2d 159 (1996). Thus, as we stated in Burlison, our prior decisions interpreting § 28-304 to include malice as a necessary element of the crime of second degree murder were clearly erroneous. Our decision in Burlison was in no manner indefensible. Furthermore, our decision in Burlison was not entirely unexpected. Although Burlison overruled a line of cases, the prior cases were not without obvious disagreement. Further, this court's interpretation of § 28-304 before Burlison was in direct contradiction to the plain meaning of the statute. But regardless of whether the Burlison decision was or was not unexpected, it certainly was not indefensible. Thus, under the test set out in Rogers v. Tennessee, 532 U.S. 451, 121 S.Ct. 1693, 149 L.Ed.2d 697 (2001), a retroactive application of Burlison does not violate due process. Redmond contends that we should continue to apply ex post facto principles to retroactive judicial interpretations of a statute. In particular, Redmond asks that we do this under the Nebraska Constitution. We decline to do so. We hold that our interpretation of § 28-304 in Burlison may be applied retroactively to a criminal act that occurred before Burlison was decided.