Opinion ID: 2359155
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rejection of the abatement ab initio doctrine by some state courts

Text: While the doctrine of abatement ab initio was the majority rule in federal and state courts when Hartwell was decided, the State argues that a steadily growing number of state courts have rejected the doctrine. [41] According to the State, these state courts have pointed to the unfairness to crime victims of abating criminal convictions and the doctrine's inconsistency with the presumption of guilt following a jury conviction. Further, the State suggests that more states have rejected abatement to some degree (22 states) than have retained it fully intact (19 states and the District of Columbia). The Public Defender Agency responds that [a]lthough a few state courts have moved away from the majority rule in the last few decades, a far greater number of state courts have directly affirmed their continued adherence to the doctrine during this same time. [42] The Public Defender Agency points out that two states, Montana and Mississippi, have actually adopted abatement ab initio for the first time in the last few decades. [43] By the Public Defender Agency's count, a majority (or near majority) of state courts that have addressed the abatement issue continue to apply a strict rule of abatement ab initio.  The State and the Public Defender Agency's primary source of disagreement is in how to group the approaches to abatement taken by each state. [44] The Public Defender Agency separates states into four categories: (1) those that dismiss the appeal and abate the criminal conviction (21 states and the District of Columbia); (2) those that dismiss the appeal and do not abate the criminal conviction (five states); (3) those that allow the appeal to continue in certain circumstances but otherwise abate the criminal conviction (seven states); and (4) those that allow the appeal to continue in certain circumstances but otherwise do not abate the criminal conviction (four states). Under the Public Defender Agency's analysis, a solid majority of the states that have addressed the issue (21 of 37) abate criminal convictions in all instances and an additional seven states abate criminal convictions in some instances. The State, in contrast, argues that all approaches other than a strict application of the abatement ab initio doctrine should be grouped together. It further challenges some of the Public Defender Agency's categorizations. Under the State's analysis, only 19 of 41 states continue to dismiss the appeal and abate the criminal proceedings in all cases. It is not necessary, or even useful, to choose between these two analyses. Under the characterization of either party, it is clear that the legal landscape is very different than it was when Hartwell was decided. Our own count, using slightly different categories than either the State or the Public Defender Agency, confirms this. It appears that the highest courts in 41 states have addressed abatement in some manner. The courts in 19 states have continued to apply strictly the doctrine of abatement ab initio. [45] Eight states generally dismiss a deceased defendant's appeal but leave the conviction intact. [46] Two states have unique approaches; Alabama places a particular notation in the deceased defendant's record, [47] while Oregon gives judges discretion both to dismiss the appeal and to vacate the judgment. [48] Eight states allow some mechanism for the appeal to continue with substitution; if no substitution occurs some of those states abate the conviction while others allow it to stand. [49] Two states simply proceed with the appeal. [50] This new diversity of opinions among the high courts of states throughout the country is another reason to conclude that the changed conditions element of the test for overruling precedent is satisfied. [51]