case announces a new rule in Massachusetts

2025See Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 428 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 832 (2016), quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) ("a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States . . . [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239-240 (2011), citing Teague, supra. Accordingly, the new rule applies to the defendant because her case is before us on direct review, but the rule "is not applicable to convictions . . . that had becom

2025See Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 428 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 832 (2016), quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) ("a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States . . . [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239-240 (2011), citing Teague, supra. Accordingly, the new rule applies to the defendant because her case is before us on direct review, but the rule "is not applicable to convictions . . . that had becom

2011In fairness, the Supreme Court, since Teague , has given broad articulation to the meaning of when a mle is “new,” thus limiting review in collateral challenges, and “validat[ing] reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts” even though they are “contrary to later decisions.” Butler v. McKeller, 494 U.S. 407, 414 (1990).

2011The Supreme Court, since Teague , has given broad articulation to the meaning of when a rule is “new,” thus limiting review in collateral challenges, and “validat[ing] reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts” even though they are “contrary to later decisions.” Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407, 414 (1990).

2025See Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 428 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 832 (2016), quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) ("a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States . . . [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239-240 (2011), citing Teague, supra. Accordingly, the new rule applies to the defendant because her case is before us on direct review, but the rule "is not applicable to convictions . . . that had becom

2019C ., 473 Mass. 832 , 46 N.E.3d 551 (2016). 5 When a case announces a new rule regarding the order and presentation of evidence, the new rule is often adopted under the Supreme Judicial Court's powers of superintendence, and usually is applied prospectively.

2025See Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 428 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 832 (2016), quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) ("a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States . . . [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239-240 (2011), citing Teague, supra. Accordingly, the new rule applies to the defendant because her case is before us on direct review, but the rule "is not applicable to convictions . . . that had becom

2025See Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 428 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 832 (2016), quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) ("a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States . . . [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239-240 (2011), citing Teague, supra. Accordingly, the new rule applies to the defendant because her case is before us on direct review, but the rule "is not applicable to convictions . . . that had becom

2025See Commonwealth v. Sylvain, 466 Mass. 422, 428 (2013), S.C., 473 Mass. 832 (2016), quoting Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989) ("a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States . . . [or] if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant's conviction became final"); Commonwealth v. Melendez-Diaz, 460 Mass. 238, 239-240 (2011), citing Teague, supra. Accordingly, the new rule applies to the defendant because her case is before us on direct review, but the rule "is not applicable to convictions . . . that had becom

2019See Dagley , 442 Mass. at 720 -721 , 816 N.E.2d 527 ("In prior cases announcing new rules or requirements in the exercise of our superintendence power, we have declined to give the new rule or requirement retroactive effect"). 6 But see Commonwealth v. Pidge , 400 Mass. 350 , 354, 509 N.E.2d 281 (1987) (applying rule of evidence retroactively in case involving murder in the first degree). 7 The Gerhardt decision also introduced a procedural anomaly.

2019See Dagley , 442 Mass. at 720 -721 , 816 N.E.2d 527 ("In prior cases announcing new rules or requirements in the exercise of our superintendence power, we have declined to give the new rule or requirement retroactive effect"). 6 But see Commonwealth v. Pidge , 400 Mass. 350 , 354, 509 N.E.2d 281 (1987) (applying rule of evidence retroactively in case involving murder in the first degree). 7 The Gerhardt decision also introduced a procedural anomaly.

2019See Dagley , 442 Mass. at 720 -721 , 816 N.E.2d 527 ("In prior cases announcing new rules or requirements in the exercise of our superintendence power, we have declined to give the new rule or requirement retroactive effect"). 6 But see Commonwealth v. Pidge , 400 Mass. 350 , 354, 509 N.E.2d 281 (1987) (applying rule of evidence retroactively in case involving murder in the first degree). 7 The Gerhardt decision also introduced a procedural anomaly.

2019See Dagley , 442 Mass. at 720 -721 , 816 N.E.2d 527 ("In prior cases announcing new rules or requirements in the exercise of our superintendence power, we have declined to give the new rule or requirement retroactive effect"). 6 But see Commonwealth v. Pidge , 400 Mass. 350 , 354, 509 N.E.2d 281 (1987) (applying rule of evidence retroactively in case involving murder in the first degree). 7 The Gerhardt decision also introduced a procedural anomaly.

2013See Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U.S. 518, 527 (1997).

1990For purposes of retroactivity analysis, “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.'” (Latter portion of emphasis supplied.) Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 301 (1989), quoted in part in Commonwealth v. Bray, 407 Mass. 296, 303 (1990).

1990Although in Commonwealth v. Shine, 398 Mass. 641, 655 (1986), we held that Henson was foreshadowed by earlier decisions beginning in the late 1970’s, none of these decisions was in effect at the time of the defendant’s trial.