Court Opinion

ID: 9703495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:58:48.184897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:49.918872
License: Public Domain

SHIRLEY S. ABRAHAMSON, CHIEF JUSTICE
¶ 89. (dissenting). I cannot join the majority opinion. It does not address the difficult issues raised by the parties in this case. The majority opinion does not address the procedural complications raised by our interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) in State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994) (hereinafter Escalona), despite the court order identifying that issue as the primary reason for accepting review in this case. Moreover, I disagree with the majority opinion that Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), requires that our decision in State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, not be applied retroactively to the case before us.
rH
¶ 90. This court's order accepting review identifies the primary issue for review: "[R]evisit the Escalona-Naranjo holding to consider whether... a meaningful bar to 'successive motions and appeals' *40continues to exist under Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4)."1 The court's order makes clear that the parties are to address the continued vitality of Escalona in light of Judge Deininger's concurring opinion in the present case explaining that defendants are able to circumvent Es-calona.
¶ 91. The majority opinion's mischaracterization of this case as an inappropriate vehicle in which to examine the issue raised by Judge Deininger is thus nothing more than a decision not to tackle the issue for which we accepted review. When it fails to address the problems identified by Judge Deininger, the majority opinion is not, as it may superficially seem, judiciously refraining from interfering with matters best left to other branches of government or to cases brought by other parties. Rather, the court is shirking its responsibility to face up to the unintended consequences of Escalona. We created the difficulty identified by Judge *41Deininger by our Escalona interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.06. We ought to repair it.
¶ 92. To achieve finality in litigation, Escalona held that a defendant may not bring claims under Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) if the defendant could have raised the claims in his or her previously filed § 974.02 motion or on direct appeal unless the defendant presents "sufficient reason" for having failed to do so.
¶ 93. The bulk of the majority opinion (Part II) is devoted to whether Escalona is correct. The majority opinion rehashes at length (48 paragraphs) the same territory mined in previous cases — the language, legislative history, and purpose of Wis. Stat. § 974.06. It also briefs this court's numerous cases that laboriously twisted, turned, tuned, revised, and reversed its various interpretations of § 974.06(4), the language of which remained essentially the same. The majority opinion ultimately concludes that Escalona correctly states the law.2
¶ 94. Noticeably absent from the majority opinion's affirmation of Escalona's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) is any consideration of the complications resulting from Escalona posited by Judge Deininger (Part III of the majority opinion). In other words, the majority opinion does not include in its analysis of the meaning of § 974.06(4) any reference to Judge Deininger's assertion that Escalona is not serving its purpose and that defendants have found a way around Escalona.
¶ 95. The majority opinion cannot, with a straight face, ignore the problems resulting from Escalona when it interprets Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4). Such an approach to statutory interpretation contravenes the basic rule of *42statutory construction that a court ought to assess the results a particular interpretation of a statute has on courts, litigants, and public policy when interpreting a statute.3 It is presumed that the legislature would not enact a statute that leads to an absurd or unreasonable result.4
¶ 96. The goal of finality in litigation is at the heart of the Escalona decision interpreting § 974.06(4) "to require criminal defendants to consolidate all their postconviction claims into one motion or appeal."5 The majority opinion here reaffirms Escalona, in large part, because it furthers the legislature's goal of finality in the criminal appeals process.6 Thus, the point raised by Judge Deininger strikes at the heart of this court's interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4). The precise issue raised by this case is whether the Escalona interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.06(4) remains correct given the fact that the Escalona decision does not promote finality by compelling a prisoner to raise all issues available to him in one procedure.7
*43¶ 97. Judge Deininger writes that despite Esca-lona, defendants are still able to obtain review of a claimed error not previously raised in an appeal or § 974.02 motion. Defendants circumvent Escalona by asserting that the "sufficient reason" the issue was not raised previously is that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to raise the issue on direct appeal or under Wis. Stat. § 974.02. In order to determine whether the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim presents a "sufficient reason" for the defendant to be heard, the court of appeals, according to Judge Deininger, must often consider the merits of the underlying claim and assess whether counsel was ineffective for not raising it, thus granting the defendant what Wis. Stat. § 974.06 as interpreted by Escalona ostensibly denies: "the consideration of the merits of the defendant's newly asserted claim, for which sufficient reason has not been shown for an earlier failure to raise it."8
¶ 98. Judge Deininger further asserts that the interpretation in Escalona creates an even more complex and difficult procedural morass when the claim is that appellate counsel is ineffective for not raising a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel. Such a claim burdens courts and the State without bringing about the desired result of finality (and without preventing a defendant from having a court consider the merits of his or her claim that Escalona apparently barred). Judge Deininger sets forth the multi-layer, convoluted question the circuit court or court of appeals must ponder as follows:
Is there merit to the now raised issue, such that trial counsel was deficient for not making a request or *44objection regarding it, thereby prejudicing the defendant, and thereby also rendering postconviction and/or appellate counsel's performance deficient and prejudicial for failing to assert trial counsel's ineffectiveness, such that the defendant has presented a sufficient reason for the failure to raise the issue in earlier postconviction or appellate proceedings, which would permit him to now bring the issue before the court for a consideration of its merits?9
¶ 99. Judge Deininger graphically describes the cumbersome task before the circuit court and court of appeals: "[T]he effort to peel through the layers of this onion-like inquiry often results in analyses that are needlessly complex, fraught with the potential for gaps or errors along the way, and, all in all, a frustrating undertaking for courts and respondent's counsel alike."10 Finally, Judge Deininger laments that circuit courts and courts of appeal have to answer this question without a Machner11 hearing to determine why trial counsel failed to raise the issue.12
*45¶ 100. The Escalona issue this case poses is whether the court should stick with Escalona and continue to require this "onion-like" analysis, which increases the workloads of counsel and the courts, or should reinterpret Wis. Stat. § 974.06. The majority opinion ducks the issue.
¶ 101. Everyone who submitted a brief in this case — the State, the defendant, the State Public Defender and the University of Wisconsin Law School Frank J. Remington Center — agrees that Escalona has posed a significant problem. They differ only on the solution.
¶ 102. To resolve the dilemma posed by Escalona, defense counsel suggests we overrule Escalona as contravening the language and legislative history and the underlying policy of finality.
¶ 103. The State says keep Escalona. The State asserts that the court of appeals is wrong to assume that a defendant can escape the Escalona bar by a claim of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. According *46to the State, appellate counsel's ineffective representation does not constitute a "sufficient reason" to allow the defendant to raise the issue on a Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motion. The State concludes that State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992), requires a defendant to litigate an ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim through a habeas petition to the appellate court, and that the court of appeals erred in State ex rel. Rothering v. McCaughtry, 205 Wis. 2d 675, 556 N.W.2d 136 (Ct. App. 1996), adopting a different procedure for claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction counsel. According to the State, a defendant who challenges appellate counsel's failure to raise a particular issue must sufficiently plead and prove deficient performance and prejudice through a Knight petition, not through a § 974.06 proceeding.13
¶ 104. The Frank J. Remington Center of the University of Wisconsin Law School supports the defendant's position on Escalona but focuses on and is critical of the State's suggested new procedure. The Center's brief illustrates how a hypothetical defendant traverses the procedural morass created by Escalona, Knight, and Rothering, as well as the State's proposal.
¶ 105. The Office of the State Public Defender supports the defendant's position on Escalona. It expands Judge Deininger's point that Escalona imposes significant costs on the courts and litigants. It also asserts that the State's proposal shifts the pressure into habeas litigation and transfers the forum for hearing the defendant's claims from the circuit courts to the appellate courts. The Public Defender explains the *47effect of the State's proposal and post-conviction remedies on the right to counsel, on the operation of its office, and on state and county funding.
¶ 106. Putting aside textual and legislative history analysis about which courts and litigants have disagreed, I conclude that the policy of finality driving Escalona is still a good one but that Escalona has not accomplished what the court intended it to do. The fact remains that serial litigation is allowed under Escalona. Defendants are getting review of their claims of trial court error despite Escalona through the circuitous and cumbersome route of claiming "ineffective assistance of appellate counsel."
¶ 107. I would not adopt the State's suggested procedure, because I think it will exacerbate the procedural complications already created by Escalona. I would just overturn Escalona.14 I noted in my Escalona dissent that this court's original interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 974.06 in Bergenthal v. State, 72 Wis. 2d 740, 242 N.W.2d 199 (1976), allowing all prisoners one § 974.06 motion, had been applied for 18 years and no showing was made that it had "become detrimental to the administration of the justice system or to the coherence and consistency in the law."15
¶ 108. In light of the practical difficulties being experienced with Escalona and the lack of difficulties for 18 years with Bergenthal, I would overturn Esca-lona and return to Bergenthal. As Justice Prosser wrote *48for the court in Johnson Controls, Inc. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, 2003 WI 108, ¶ 106, 264 Wis. 2d 60, 665 N.W.2d 257, stare decisis should not deter a court from correcting a decision when events subsequent to the decision demonstrate that the court has failed to provide "suitable direction and consistency."
¶ 109. The majority opinion expends seven paragraphs (¶¶ 50-57) complimenting Judge Deininger on his "insightful" identification of the "complications resulting from the Escalona decision," but then does nothing about these complications. The circuit court and court of appeals are left to shoulder the burden Escalona imposes without any relief in sight, as the majority opinion never explains by whom or when these "complications" will be eliminated or alleviated. It suggests at one point we should defer to the legislature: "Some of the answers to these issues may be more a matter of wise policymaking than statutory interpretation."16 At another point it suggests that this court should craft remedies via its rule-making authority in collaboration with "the State and the defense bar"17 because of concerns about fairness to defendants and the State and shifts in workload. Finally, it opines that more information is needed from other jurisdictions (readily available to the court through the library, the Internet, and other sources) before "we attempt to fashion a solution" that promotes reasonable finality.18
¶ 110. This court has a responsibility to resolve the issues raised by the cases we accept for review. The majority opinion neglects this responsibility without an explanation, leaving circuit courts, the court of appeals, *49the State, and many prisoners stuck in a procedural morass that benefits none of them. This is unacceptable.
II
¶ 111. The second issue on which the majority opinion and I disagree is whether State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413, applies retroactively to cases on collateral review. The majority opinion looks to federal cases to assist in deciding the issue and makes the federal cases sound consistent, easy to understand, and easy to apply. I do not think retroactivity is an easy area of the law. I agree with a commentator who explained the confusing state of U.S. Supreme Court cases relating to retroactivity as follows: "Over the course of the past thirty-six years, the [U.S. Supreme] Court has grappled with the issue of retroactivity and has crafted a theoretically incoherent doctrine that has proven difficult to apply."19
¶ 112. The majority opinion concludes that Head does not apply retroactively to cases on collateral review. It reaches this conclusion by applying the federal doctrine of nonretroactivity for "new constitutional rules of criminal procedure" announced in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 (1989), and then by asserting that the "rule announced in Head does not satisfy either of the Teague tests for retroactivity in a collateral proceeding."20
*50¶ 113. The problem with the majority opinion's conclusion is that Teague does not apply to the present case. We so held in State v. Howard, 211 Wis. 2d 269, 284, 564 N.W.2d 753 (1997). The defendant in Howard was convicted after the jury was instructed on the charge of possessing a dangerous weapon in accord with the law at the time. This court subsequently declared in another case that the instruction erroneously stated an element of the offense.21 On collateral review, the Howard court recognized that its new interpretation of the elements of the crime worked a substantive change in the law and accordingly Teague did not apply. The Howard court concluded that there was a distinction between new procedural rules and new substantive interpretations in the retroactivity context and held that "the Teague retroactivity analysis is limited to procedural rules" and "the doctrine of nonretroactivity found in Teague does not apply to substantive interpretations."22 It therefore applied the new interpretation retroactively on collateral review to cases finalized before the change of the substantive law.23
¶ 114. Howard is consistent with United States Supreme Court precedent. The United States Supreme Court has held that Teague applies only to procedural rules and is inapplicable in situations in which a court decides the meaning of á criminal statute enacted by *51Congress.24 Changes in substantive law, in contrast to changes in procedural law, are presumed to apply retroactively to all cases (both on direct and on collateral review) because the holding that a substantive criminal statute does not reach certain conduct carries a significant risk that a defendant stands convicted of an act that the law does not make criminal.25
¶ 115. The majority opinion finesses this crucial distinction when it concludes that Head is a new rule that does not apply retroactively to cases already final because it does not fit the exceptions to Teague.26 If one believes, as I think one must, that Head changed a substantive criminal law, then Teague does not apply and the presumption is that the "new" law applies retroactively to cases on collateral review.27
¶ 116. The heart of the issue presented by this case is whether this court's decision in Head announced a new rule of criminal procedure or one of substantive *52law.28 The majority opinion closes its eyes to this issue, blindly framing the threshold issue as whether the decision in Head could "fairly be described as a 'new rule' "29 without focusing on whether the decision in Head should fairly be described as a new constitutional rule for criminal procedure or a new interpretation of substantive law. The majority opinion's neglect of this distinction between new procedural and new substantive rules in the retroactivity context is particularly puzzling given the fact that both parties recognized the distinction and briefed their arguments accordingly.
¶ 117. The defendant argues that Head provided a new substantive interpretation of imperfect self-defense,' not a new constitutional rule for criminal procedure, and thus must be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review under Howard. According to the defendant, this case is on all fours with Howard — he was convicted by a jury instructed in accordance with the law at the time, the law was subsequently reinterpreted, and he is entitled to a new trial under the correct interpretation of the law.
¶ 118. The State, for its part, argues that Howard. (and Bousley) do not control this case for two reasons: (1) in Howard this court interpreted a statute for the first time, whereas in Head this court merely modified an existing interpretation; and (2) in Howard the new interpretation involved an essential element of a penalty enhancer, whereas in Head the new interpretation involved an affirmative defense. According to the State, *53this latter distinction means that despite the change in the law, the State proved all of the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and no previously criminal behavior has been decriminalized.
¶ 119. I agree with the defendant. I conclude that Head represents a new interpretation of substantive law that, under Howard, enjoys the presumption of retroactive application to cases on direct review and cases on collateral review.
¶ 120. Head defined anew what conduct may be criminalized as first-degree intentional homicide. It rejected the prevailing view that imperfect self-defense required an objectively reasonable belief of imminent threat and held that the legislature intended for imperfect self-defense to require a subjective belief of imminent threat.
¶ 121. Prior to Head, a defendant who asserted imperfect self-defense under Wis. Stat. § 940.01(2)(b) as an affirmative defense to first degree intentional homicide was guilty if the jury found the defendant's belief that he or she was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his person unreasonable.30 This objective test was based on this court's interpretation of the statute in State v. Camacho, 176 Wis. 2d 860, 501 N.W.2d 380 (1993). In Head, the same law, § 940.01(2)(b), was interpreted to encompass a subjective test of whether the defendant "actually" believed he was preventing or terminating an unlawful interference with his person.31 Thus, prior to Head, a person was guilty of first-degree intentional homicide even if the jury found that he actually believed he was acting in *54self-defense, but after Head, that same person is no longer guilty of first-degree intentional homicide.
¶ 122. The majority opinion dramatically understates the import of this shift from an objective to a subjective standard, describing it as a "fairly subtle difference."32 Whether a person is to be measured on an objective or subjective standard is a major issue running throughout many different areas of law,33 and a court's decision to impose criminal or civil liability based on one or the other standard is often outcome determinative. The shift required a reversal of the defendant's conviction in Head, and as the majority opinion admits:
If [Head] applied retroactively, [the defendant's] conviction for attempted first-degree homicide would prob-. ably be reversed on the basis that the jury instruction for unnecessary defensive force (imperfect self-defense) did not require the State to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that [the defendant] did not actually believe that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm 34
¶ 123. Contrary to the State's assertion, it makes no difference that Head modified an existing interpretation of the imperfect self-defense statute as opposed to interpreting that statute for the first time. Either way, the defendant was convicted under an incorrect interpretation of the law.35 Moreover, contrary to the *55majority opinion, it makes no difference that Head changed the interpretation of an element of an affirmative defense as opposed to an element of the crime itself. The State bears the burden of disproving the affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt as it does the elements of the offense and it is irrelevant that Head did not decriminalize any conduct. There is no requirement that a change in the law decriminalize conduct in order to be substantive.36
¶ 124. The failure to apply the new interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 940.01 (2)(b) announced in Head retroactively to all cases is also untenable because it implies that the statute means one thing prior to this court's interpretation and something entirely different after-*56wards.37 Moreover, it suggests that this court can determine and has determined what conduct is criminal, or at least the degree to which certain conduct is criminal, in all pre-Head cases. This is inappropriate. The legislature "determines what constitutes a crime in Wisconsin and establishes maximum penalties for each class of crime."38
¶ 125. The majority opinion here fails to apply Head retroactively because it fears that our criminal justice system cannot handle the potential flood of cases in which someone will seek a new trial if Head is applied retroactively. The majority opinion admits as much when it begins its analysis, "[I]f we were to retroactively apply the decision in Head to this case, we would arguably open to collateral attack 10 years of homicide convictions that involved the standard jury instruction *57on imperfect self-defense,"39 and concludes its analysis by tipping its hat to "considerations of finality."40
¶ 126. The majority opinion's concerns are appropriate. Many prisoners may request a new trial if Head is applied retroactively. These concerns, however, are no substitute for the burden this court has to insure that a person is not condemned for a crime that he or she did not commit. "Lest there remain any doubt about the constitutional stature of the reasonable-doubt standard, we explicitly hold that the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged."41
¶ 127. The defendant here is likely guilty of a crime. He shot and wounded another person. But he is likely not guilty of the crime for which he is now spending 29 years of his life in prison. There appears to be substantial evidence supporting the defendant's testimony that he actually believed the victim was reaching for a gun before he pulled his own gun, and thus, that a jury could have reasonably concluded that he acted in "imperfect" self-defense under the proper interpretation of § 940.01(2m)(b). The defendant deserves a trial in which the State proves beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged.
II
¶ 128. The majority opinion concludes that it does not have the information or arguments necessary to address the complications stemming from Escalona *58identified by Judge Deininger, despite a court order squarely requesting that the parties address these complications and four briefs responding to that request. It thus defers judgment on the matter.
¶ 129. The majority opinion then concludes that it has the information and arguments necessary to settle the complicated law of retroactivity without referencing the arguments presented and briefed by the parties or acknowledging the legal issues actually raised and asserts its judgment on the matter.
¶ 130. I agree with the State that Wisconsin is free to establish and apply its own retroactivity analysis.42 This court has endorsed the Teague approach generally,43 even though it has recognized that Teague is not very well crafted or understood. The court has modified the Teague approach when it has thought adaptation necessary on policy grounds.44
¶ 131. Figuring out retroactivity is a difficult matter, however, and should not be done without help from litigants and without examining what other states are doing and what does and does not work. The majority opinion in this case overturns Howard sub silencio and departs from United States Supreme Court precedent without batting an eye and without full information such as the effect of retroactivity on finalized cases.
*59¶ 132. Why the majority is comfortable with such an approach when addressing retroactivity but not addressing Escalona completely escapes me.
¶ 133. For the foregoing reasons, I dissent.
¶ 134. I am authorized to state that Justices WILLIAM A. BABLITCH and ANN WALSH BRADLEY join Part II of this dissent.

 State v. Lo, No. 01-0843, unpublished slip op. ¶ 58 (Wis. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2001) (Deininger, J., concurring). See also majority op., ¶ 50.
This court's order accepting review reads as follows:
[The parties' briefs] may also, to the extent necessary, address the majority's conclusions that: (1) the defendant-appellant-petitioner was barred from raising issues in the postconviction motion; (2) he failed to allege sufficient facts in his postconviction motion to raise a question of fact; and (3) the record conclusively demonstrated that the defendant-appellant-petitioner was not entitled to relief. The parties are cautioned, however, that the courts primary reason for accepting review in this case is to consider the points raised in the concurring opinion [of Judge Deininger]....
State v. Lo, No. 01-0843, unpublished order (Wis. S. Ct. April 29, 2002) (emphasis added).

 Majority op., ¶ 15.

 See, e.g., State v. Yellow Freight Sys., Inc., 101 Wis. 2d 142, 153, 303 N.W.2d 834 (1981) ("[T[his court has often held that statutes should not be construed or interpreted to achieve absurd or unreasonable results.").

 See State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, ¶ 23, 259 Wis. 2d 523, 657 N.W.2d 393 ("The legislature could not have intended the absurd result of requiring the issuance of a warrant for statute of limitations purposes under Wis. Stat. s. 939.74(1) for an individual who is already in custody.").

 State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis. 2d 168, 178, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994).

 Majority op., ¶ 46.

 Majority op., ¶ 18 (citing Comment to Wis. Stat. Ann. § 974.06 (West Supp. 1998)).

 Lo, unpublished slip op., ¶ 56 (Deininger, J., concurring).

 Id., ¶ 57 (Deininger, J., concurring).

 Id., ¶ 58 (Deininger, J., concurring).

 See State v. Machner, 101 Wis. 2d 79, 303 N.W.2d 633 (1981).

 The complicating effects of Escalona are not limited to review under Wis. Stat. § 974.06. Defense counsel asserts that because all issues must be raised on direct appeal or be deemed waived, cautious post-conviction or appellate counsel must include and litigate ineffective assistance of counsel on virtually any argued post-conviction motion or appeal.
The United States Supreme Court's decision in Massaro v. United States, _ U.S. _, 123 S. Ct. 1690 (2003), provides support for defense counsel's position. In Massaro the United States Supreme Court held that, despite the general rule that claims not raised on direct appeal may not be raised on *45collateral review unless the petitioner shows cause and prejudice, a petitioner could raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a collateral proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (upon which our law is based), even though the petitioner could have raised, but did not raise, the claim on direct appeal. Massaro, 123 S. Ct. at 1694. The Massaro Court recognized that forcing an offender to bring an ineffective assistance of counsel claim on direct review "creates inefficiencies for courts and counsel." Massaro, 123 S. Ct. at 1695,. According to the United States Supreme Court, appellate counsel is in a difficult position vis-á-vis trial counsel, needing trial counsel's help to get familiar with a trial record on short notice while simultaneously combing his or her comments for signs of incompetence.
Furthermore, apparently most Wis. Stat. § 974.06 motions are filed pro se by inmates without legal training or substantial legal resources.

 The State's Brief presents a very detailed proposal, even suggesting standards the courts should apply to a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. State's Br. at 14-23.

 In the interest of full disclosure, I should state that I dissented in Escalona, observing that the Escalona approach merely shifts a court's attention from the merits of the constitutional claim to "arcane procedural issues." Escalona, .185 Wis. 2d at 196 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).

 Escalona, 185 Wis. 2d at 197 (Abrahamson, J., dissenting).

 Majority op., ¶ 56.

 Id., ¶ 4.

 Id., ¶ 56.

 Christopher S. Strauss, Collateral Damage: How the Supreme Court's Retroactivity Doctrine Affects Federal Drug Prisoners' Apprendi Claims on Collateral Review, 81 N.C. L. Rev. 1220, 1222 (2003).

 Majority op., ¶ 70. The exceptions to the rule of nonret-roactivity for cases on collateral review are: (1) if the new rule *50places certain kinds of primary, private individual conduct beyond the power of the criminal law-making authority to proscribe; and (2) if the new rule requires the observance of those procedures that are implicit in the concept of ordered liberty. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 307 (1989).

 See State v. Peete, 185 Wis. 2d 4, 517 N.W.2d 149 (1994).

 State v. Howard, 211 Wis. 2d 269, 284, 564 N.W.2d 753 (1997).

 Howard, 211 Wis. 2d at 272.

 See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 620 (1998) ("[B]ecause Teague by its terms applies only to procedural rules, we think it is inapplicable to the situation in which this Court decides the meaning of a criminal statute.").

 See Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614, 620 (1998); United States v. Mandanici, 205 F.3d 519, 525 (2d Cir. 2000) ("While a new rule of constitutional criminal procedure generally does not apply retroactively on collateral review, a new rule of substantive criminal law is presumptively retroactive because a defendant may have been punished for conduct that simply is not illegal.") (internal quotations omitted).

 Majority op., ¶ 70.

 The majority opinion's warning to states that departing from the Teague principles has a significant impact on the finality of criminal convictions is inapposite. Majority op., ¶ 75. Bousley makes clear that applying a new substantive interpretation retroactively to cases on collateral review is not a departure from Teague.

 See, e.g., Monsanto v. United States, 143 F. Supp. 2d 273, 277 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) ("In deciding whether the Richardson decision applies retroactively, the Court must determine whether the Supreme Court announced in Richardson a new rule of criminal procedure or one of substantive law.").

 Majority op., ¶ 62.

 State v. Head, 2002 WI 99, ¶ 79, 255 Wis. 2d 194, 648 N.W.2d 413.

 Head, 255 Wis. 2d 194, ¶ 70.

 Majority op., ¶ 68.

 See, e.g., Hofflander v. St. Catherine's Hosp., Inc., 2003 WI 77, 262 Wis. 2d 539, 664 N.W.2d 545.

 Majority op., ¶ 58.

 The law presumes that jurors faithfully follow the jury instructions. The instructions in the present case did not accurately state the law and possibly misled the jurors about the *55applicability of the defendant's claim of imperfect self-defense. The erroneous instruction constitutes a profound violation of a defendant's constitutional rights. The incorrect jury instructions mean that the defendant was not tried under the substantive criminal laws of the State and was thus deprived of a fair trial under the laws of this state. The right to a correct affirmative defense instruction when there is evidence to support an affirmative defense is especially critical when the defendant takes the stand to prove his affirmative defense. The defendant merely asks that he be convicted of attempted first-degree intentional homicide only if he is guilty of attempted first-degree intentional homicide.

 Monsanto, 143 F. Supp. 2d at 278 ("There is nothing in Davis, or in any other precedent that this Court is aware of, to suggest that a new decision is substantive only if it results in a conviction for an act that the law does not make criminal."); see also Santana-Madera v. United States, 260 F.3d 133, 139 (2d Cir. 2001) (concluding that a case interpreting a federal criminal statute so as to change the elements of an offense altered the meaning of the substantive criminal law and was therefore retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review).

 United States v. Dashney, 52 F.3d 298, 299 (10th Cir. 1995); see also State v. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 592, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998) (retroactive application of a decision striking down an unconstitutional criminal law is required "because failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for conduct which has been held constitutionally immune from punishment.").
The majority opinion's conclusion that "the court's instruction [on imperfect self-defense in the present case] was correct at the time it was given and it would be only slightly different today," majority op., ¶ 83, flatly disregards the language in Head concluding that "we are mindful that our interpretation [of Wis. Stat. § 940.01(2)(b)] is at odds with the court's determination in Camacho." Head, 255 Wis. 2d 194, ¶ 92.

 In re Judicial Admin. Felony Sentencing Guidelines, 120 Wis. 2d 198, 203, 353 N.W.2d 793 (1984).

 Majority op., ¶ 61.

 Majority op., ¶ 75.

 In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364 (1970).

 See Wainwright v. Stone, 414 U.S. 21, 23-24 (1973).

 See, e.g., State v. Howard, 211 Wis. 2d 269, 282, 564 N.W.2d 753 (1997); State v. Koch, 175 Wis. 2d 684, 694, 499 N.W.2d 152 (1993), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 880 (1993); State v. Horton, 195 Wis. 2d 280, 287, 536 N.W.2d 155 (Ct. App. 1995).

 See, e.g., State ex rel. Schmelzer v. Murphy, 201 Wis. 2d 246, 257, 548 N.W.2d 45 (1996) (applying a variation of Teague).