Court Opinion

ID: 9862488
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 01:15:45.750163+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:25:39.417647
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
The opinion in this case makes only the most oblique reference to the issue appellant has presented in this appeal, whether the decision in Street v. State (1991), Ind., 567 N.E.2d 102, meets the retroactivity standard *902of Daniels v. State (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 487, such that it may be applied to Mr. Huffman.
Passing by Daniels, a seminal decision by this Court, and deciding to resolve the issue on the basis of "prejudice," Maj. op. at 900, suggests that there is not much left of Dan-tels and that pretty much any old thing will do so far as retroactivity is concerned. This seems especially untimely in light of this Court's recent declaration that its new rule prohibiting victim impact evidence will not be applied to capital cases decided before Bivins v. State (1994), Ind., 642 N.E.2d 928. After today's opinion, why not?