Opinion ID: 1331464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Run, Toto, Run! The Majority's Actions Will Have Retroactive Effect

Text: I must finally take issue with the majority's comment regarding the retroactive nature of its decision in this matter, a comment relegated to a footnote. The majority herein decided an issue involving a defendant's constitutional right under Article III, Section 6 of our Constitution, finding that he was entitled to the issuance of a warrant based upon probable cause before a government informant who has been invited into his home can passively record the defendant's openly displayed illegal activities. This was not a mere procedural or prophylactic rule. It involved a substantive constitutional right. In State v. Blake, 197 W. Va. 700, 478 S.E.2d 550 (1996), this Court addressed whether the rule announced in State v. Neuman, 179 W.Va. 580, 371 S.E.2d 77 (1988), requiring a court to make a determination on the record that a defendant has knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right of self-incrimination before permitting a defendant to testify in his own behalf should be applied retroactively. In Blake, this Court found that the rule in Neuman was merely a procedural/prophylactic rule to guide courts in future proceedings . . . the Neuman requirements, like the Miranda warnings, are not constitutional rights themselves but are merely prophylactic standards designed to safeguard the right of every criminal defendant to testify in his or her own behalf. Blake 197 W. Va. at 713, 478 S.E.2d at 562. In an effort to guide future retroactivity analyses, the Court held, in Syllabus Point 5 of Blake that The criteria to be used in deciding the retroactivity of new constitutional rules of criminal procedure are: (a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards. Thus, a judicial decision in a criminal case is to be given prospective application only if: (a) It established a new principle of law; (b) its retroactive application would retard its operation; and (c) its retroactive application would produce inequitable results. Utilizing this analysis, the Court in Blake determined that because Neuman clarified applicable procedural law only, and not substantive or constitutional law, it should be given prospective application only. Id. at 713, 478 S.E.2d at 563. In the instant matter, the majority decided a substantive constitutional right. As recently stated by the United States Supreme Court, a new rule decided on constitutional principles applies retroactively if (1) the rule is substantive or (2) the rule is a watershed rul[e] of criminal procedure implicating the fundamental fairness and accuracy of the criminal proceeding. Whorton v. Bockting, ___ U.S. ___, ___, 127 S.Ct. 1173, 1181, 167 L.Ed.2d 1 (2007). Due to the substantive nature of the constitutional right found by the majority in this matter, I cannot agree with their statement that the majority's holding does not apply retroactively. It does. For the reasons set forth herein, I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this matter.