Court Opinion

ID: 9700154
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 21:13:29.36609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:07:50.199738
License: Public Domain

NIX, Justice
(dissenting).
I must respectfully dissent.
Relying on Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 Pa. 370, 344 A.2d 877 (1975), and Commonwealth v. Simms, 462 Pa. 26, 333 A.2d 477 (1975), the majority mistakenly as*469sumes that there is “no longer an open question” regarding the retroactive application of the principle announced in Commonwealth v. Demmitt, 456 Pa. 475, 821 A.2d 627 (1974), as to the appropriate burden of proof where the issue of sanity has been raised. I am unpersuaded that either Williams, supra, or Simms, supra, requires such a conclusion. While the rule announced in Commonwealth v. Demmit, supra, was applied in Williams, supra, and Simms, supra, the issue of retroactivity was not affirmatively challenged, and thus, this Court has never specifically addressed the issue of the retroactive application of the Commonwealth’s burden of proof in cases where insanity is claimed.1
Without resolving the question of whether or not the decision of Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975) constitutionally mandates the result reached in Commonwealth v. Rose, supra.2 I need only point out that even the United States Supreme Court has retreated from its prior, inflexible view that full retroactivity must be given to new interpretations of the Constitution. See Michigan v. Payne, 412 U.S. 47, 93 S.Ct. 1966, 36 L.Ed.2d 736 (1973). Moreover, that Court no longer confines its inquiry to the simple distinction between direct and collateral appeal. Compare, Williams v. United States, 401 U.S. 646, 91 S.Ct. 1148, 28 L.Ed.2d 388 (1971); Desist v. United States, 394 U.S. 244, 89 S.Ct. 1080, 22 L.Ed.2d 248 (1969); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U.S. 719, 86 S.Ct. 1772, 16 L.Ed.2d 882 (1966); with Tehan v. Shott, 382 U.S. 406, 86 S.Ct. 459, 15 L.Ed.2d 453 (1966); Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618, 85 S.Ct. 1731, 14 L.Ed.2d 601 (1965). When re*470viewing the issue of retroactivity the Supreme Court gives consideration to three criteria:
“(a) the purpose to be served by the new standards, (b) the extent of the reliance by law enforcement authorities on the old standards, and (c) the effect on the administration of justice of a retroactive application of the new standards.” .
Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S.Ct. 1967, 1970, 18 L.Ed.2d 1199 (1967). See, e. g., Desist v. United States, supra; Johnson v. New Jersey, supra; Linkletter v. Walker, supra. “Each constitutional rule of criminal procedure has its own distinct functions, its own background of precedent, and its own impact on the administration of justice, and the way in which these factors combine must inevitably vary with the dictate involved.” Johnson v. New Jersey, supra at 728, 86 S.Ct. at 1778.
The fundamental reason for discarding the former rule and applying the basic standard of reasonable doubt was to prevent the possible confusion that may formerly have been engendered by the coexistence of two standards of proof. The effect of the change is not so intrinsically intertwined with the fact-finding process, that it would mandate retroactive application. United States v. Zirpolo, 450 F.2d 424, 432-3, (3rd Cir. 1971). See also Michigan v. Payne, supra; Williams v. United States, supra. Moreover, in this jurisdiction, the state of our law has remained unchanged for decades, that to now insist on retroactive application would place an intolerable burden on our system.
It is clear to me that even assuming that Mullaney v. Wilbur, supra is a constitutionally mandated standard of criminal procedure, a thorough consideration of the exigencies of this ruling does not require retroactive application.
JONES, C. J., joins in this dissent.

. Mr. Chief Justice JONES did address this issue, however, in his dissent in Commonwealth v. Simms, 462 Pa. 26, 333 A.2d 477 (1975).

. See Commonwealth v. Cropper, 463 Pa. 529, 535, 345 A.2d 645, 648, n. 6 (1975); Commonwealth v. Williams, 463 Pa. 374, 344 A. 2d 877, 879, n. 2 (1975).