Teague rule in Louisiana

1992Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), applied the Teague rule in a capital sentencing context.

1992Penry v. Lynaugh, 492 U.S. 302 , 109 S.Ct. 2934 , 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989), applied the Teague rule in a capital sentencing context.

2022The Court has never identified any other pre-Teague or post-Teague rule as watershed.” Edwards, 593 U.S. at __, 141 S.Ct. at 1557 (citing Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 419 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 (2007)).

2022The Court has never identified any other pre-Teague or post-Teague rule as watershed.” Edwards, 593 U.S. at __, 141 S.Ct. at 1557 (citing Whorton v. Bockting, 549 U.S. 406, 419 , 127 S.Ct. 1173 (2007)).

2013If the rule is determined to be new, the final step in the Teague analysis requires the court to determine whether the rule nonetheless falls within one of the two narrow exceptions to the Teague doctrine. 520 U.S., at 527 , 117 S.Ct., at |s1524-1525.

2013If the rule is determined to be new, the final step in the Teague analysis requires the court to determine whether the rule nonetheless falls within one of the two narrow exceptions to the Teague doctrine. 520 U.S., at 527 , 117 S.Ct., at |s1524-1525.

2020Factual Background The facts of this case were previously set forth in Brown, 694 So.2d at 436 : The crimes Brown was convicted of occurred on August 25, 1994 in Kenner, Louisiana.

2020Factual Background The facts of this case were previously set forth in Brown, 694 So.2d at 436 : The crimes Brown was convicted of occurred on August 25, 1994 in Kenner, Louisiana.

2016Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. 229 , 231, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2016Davis v. U.S., 564 U.S. 229 , 231, 131 S.Ct. 2419 , 180 L.Ed.2d 285 (2011).

2013Although we undoubtedly have the discretion to reach the State’s Teague argument, we will not do so in these circumstances!] [Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 229 , 114 S.Ct. 783 , 127 L.Ed.2d 47 (1994) (citations omitted).] In Jaclcson, because the State did not raise the issue of retroactivity, the necessary predicate for the Court to resolve the question of retroactivity was waived.

2013Although we undoubtedly have the discretion to reach the State’s Teague argument, we will not do so in these circumstances!] [Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 229 , 114 S.Ct. 783 , 127 L.Ed.2d 47 (1994) (citations omitted).] In Jaclcson, because the State did not raise the issue of retroactivity, the necessary predicate for the Court to resolve the question of retroactivity was waived.

2013The State alleges the Teague defense was not argued before our supreme court in Simmons, 99 So.3d 28 , or Landry, 106 So.3d 106 , and was not raised by the supreme court sua sponte.

2013Taylor v. Whitley, 606 So.2d 1292, 1297 (La.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 962 , 113 S.Ct. 2935 , 124 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993), the standards for determining retroactivity set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 6109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), apply to “all cases on collateral review in our state courts.” Accordingly, our analysis is directed by the Teague inquiry.

2013Taylor v. Whitley, 606 So.2d 1292, 1297 (La.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 962 , 113 S.Ct. 2935 , 124 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993), the standards for determining retroactivity set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 6109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), apply to “all cases on collateral review in our state courts.” Accordingly, our analysis is directed by the Teague inquiry.

2013Taylor v. Whitley, 606 So.2d 1292, 1297 (La.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 962 , 113 S.Ct. 2935 , 124 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993), the standards for determining retroactivity set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 6109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), apply to “all cases on collateral review in our state courts.” Accordingly, our analysis is directed by the Teague inquiry.

2013Taylor v. Whitley, 606 So.2d 1292, 1297 (La.1992), cert. denied, 508 U.S. 962 , 113 S.Ct. 2935 , 124 L.Ed.2d 684 (1993), the standards for determining retroactivity set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 6109 S.Ct. 1060 , 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989), apply to “all cases on collateral review in our state courts.” Accordingly, our analysis is directed by the Teague inquiry.

2013The State alleges the Teague defense was not argued before our supreme court in Simmons, 99 So.3d 28 , or Landry, 106 So.3d 106 , and was not raised by the supreme court sua sponte.

1997As was noted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State ex rel Taylor v. Whitley, supra, 606 So.2d at 1296, the Teague rule as defined in Butler was further "refined" by the Court in Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 488 , 110 S.Ct. 1257, 1260 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990): "The `new rule' principle therefore validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions." Butler, supra, 494 U.S., at 415, 110 S.Ct., at 1217 .

1997As was noted by the Louisiana Supreme Court in State ex rel Taylor v. Whitley, supra, 606 So.2d at 1296, the Teague rule as defined in Butler was further "refined" by the Court in Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 488 , 110 S.Ct. 1257, 1260 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990): "The `new rule' principle therefore validates reasonable, good-faith interpretations of existing precedents made by state courts even though they are shown to be contrary to later decisions." Butler, supra, 494 U.S., at 415, 110 S.Ct., at 1217 .

1992In Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990), the Court gave some guidance on the application of the second Teague exception: In Teague , we modified Justice Harlan's test to combine the accuracy element of the Desist test with the Mackey limitation of the exception to watershed rules of fundamental fairness.

1992In Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990), the Court gave some guidance on the application of the second Teague exception: In Teague , we modified Justice Harlan's test to combine the accuracy element of the Desist test with the Mackey limitation of the exception to watershed rules of fundamental fairness.

1992NOTES [1] 595 So.2d 642 (La.1992). [2] The states which have thus far addressed the Teague issue are divided.

1992In Cowell v. Leapley, 458 N.W.2d 514 (S.D.1990), the Supreme Court of South Dakota rejected the Teague rule and continued to apply its state rule which was derived from Linkletter .

1992In Cowell v. Leapley, 458 N.W.2d 514 (S.D.1990), the Supreme Court of South Dakota rejected the Teague rule and continued to apply its state rule which was derived from Linkletter .

1992In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990), the Court dealt with the issue of whether its opinion in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), was a new rule under Teague .

1992In Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990), the Court dealt with the issue of whether its opinion in Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988), was a new rule under Teague .