Court Opinion

ID: 9691839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:17:18.784874+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:26.330678
License: Public Domain

Dissenting Opinion by
Mb. Justice Robebts :
I endorse without reservation the majority’s stated intention to forbid use of the Allen charge in trials that take place after the date of this decision and its approval and commendation for future trials of the jury instructions pertaining to deadlocked juries recommended by the. ABA Project oh Minimum' Standards for Criminal “Justice, Trial by Jury §5.4 (Approved Draft 1968). I must dissent, however, in light of the majority’s purely prospective limitation, of its ruling. *339At the very least, that ruling ought to be applied to the appeal at bar.
It is not at all rare and indeed often wise for an appellate court to hold a newly created rule of law inapplicable to prior cases. Even in such cases, however, it has been the custom of this Court as well as that of the United States Supreme Court to apply the new rule at least to the very case in which it is announced. The rationale underlying this practice has been aptly summarized as follows: “At least two compelling reasons exist for applying the new rule to the instant case while otherwise limiting its application to cases arising in the future. First, if we were to merely announce the new rule without applying it here, such announcement would amount to mere dictum. Second, and more important, to refuse to apply the new rule here would deprive appellant of any benefit from his effort and expense in challenging the old rule which we now declare erroneous. Thus there would be no incentive to appeal the upholding of precedent since appellant could not in any event benefit from a reversal invalidating it.” Molitor v. Kaneland Community Unit District, 18 Ill. 2d 11, 28, 163 N.E. 2d 89, 97 (1959).
These considerations are significant and apply with equal force to the instant case. I therefore dissent.