watershed exception in Louisiana

2023Ed. 2d 651 (2021) which held that that Ramos v. Louisiana, supra, does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review as it does not meet the watershed rule set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S. Ct. 1060 , 103 L.

2023Ed. 2d 651 (2021) which held that that Ramos v. Louisiana, supra, does not apply retroactively on federal collateral review as it does not meet the watershed rule set forth in Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288 , 109 S. Ct. 1060 , 103 L.

2015Further, the Tate court held that the new rule announced in Miller did not apply retroactively as it was “a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure that [was] neither substantive nor a watershed rule that alters our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Id., 130 So.3d at 841 .

2015Further, the Tate court held that the new rule announced in Miller did not apply retroactively as it was “a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure that [was] neither substantive nor a watershed rule that alters our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Id., 130 So.3d at 841 .

2013In People v. Carp, 307,758 (11/15/12), 298 Mich.App. 472 , 828 N.W.2d 685 , a Michigan appellate court held that Miller should not be applied retroactively to cases already final on appeal when the Miller decision was rendered.

2013It follows, therefore, the rule announced in Miller “is a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure that is neither substantive nor a watershed rule that alters |17our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Chambers, 831 N.W.2d at 331 ; see also Craig, 2013 WL 69128 , at *2; Carp, 828 N.W.2d at 712 . 4 Consequently, we find Tate and those other similarly situated defendants are not entitled to the retroactive benefit of the Miller rule in post-conviction proceedings.

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013It follows, therefore, the rule announced in Miller “is a new rule of criminal constitutional procedure that is neither substantive nor a watershed rule that alters |17our understanding of the bedrock procedural elements essential to the fairness of a proceeding.” Chambers, 831 N.W.2d at 331 ; see also Craig, 2013 WL 69128 , at *2; Carp, 828 N.W.2d at 712 . 4 Consequently, we find Tate and those other similarly situated defendants are not entitled to the retroactive benefit of the Miller rule in post-conviction proceedings.

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013DECREE: The trial court erred in finding Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 , (2012), retroactively applicable to this matter.

2013DECREE: The trial court erred in finding Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 2455 , 183 L.Ed.2d 407 , (2012), retroactively applicable to this matter.

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013Additionally, the Defendant asserts that Morgan, 713 F.3d 1365 , Craig, ( 2013 WL 69128 ), and Carp, 828 N.W.2d 685 , have no precedential value, as states are free to give broader retroactive effect to new rules of criminal procedure | ^than is required by federal law.

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The following is a summary of the post- Teague decisions in which the Supreme Court found a new rule would not qualify under the watershed exception: The sentencing cases are: (1) Saffle v. Parks, 494 U.S. 484, 486 , 110 S.Ct. 1257 , 108 L.Ed.2d 415 (1990) (holding that a new rule that forbids the trial court from "telling the jury to avoid any influence of sympathy, violates the Eighth Amendment” — is not watershed): (2) Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 233 , 110 S.Ct. 2822 , 111 L.Ed.2d 193 (1990) (determining that the new rule of Caldwell v. Mississippi, 472 U.S. 320, 328-29 , 105 S.Ct. 2633

2013The Defendant notes that in Williams, 982 N.E.2d 181 , the Illinois appellate court held that Miller was a watershed rule of criminal procedure.

2013The appellate court stated: “the relief granted to Jackson in Miller tends to indicate that Miller should apply retroactively on collateral review.” In People v. Williams, 1-11-1145, 1 — 11— 2251 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 12/12/12), 367 IlLDec. 503, 982 N.E.2d 181 , the Illinois appellate court held the decision in Miller constituted a substantial change in the law and was a watershed rule of criminal procedure.

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

2013The non-sentencing .cases are: (1) Butler v. McKellar, 494 U.S. 407 , 110 S.Ct. 1212 , 108 L.Ed.2d 347 (1990)(holding that the new rule of Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675 , 108 S.Ct. 2093 , 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) — barring police-initiated interrogation following a suspect's request for counsel — is not watershed); (2) Gilmore v. Taylor, 508 U.S. 333 , 113 S.Ct. 2112 , 124 L.Ed.2d 306 (1993)(concluding that the new rule of Falconer v. Lane, 905 F.2d 1129 (7th Cir.1990) — holding unconstitutional jury instructions that allowed murder convictions without consideration of a diminished mental st

1992In the present case, however, the trial judge's instruction followed the reasonable doubt standard, although he used terms later found to be erroneous. [5] Moreover, the previous holdings that the Cage error can be harmless, State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), and that the Cage error is subject to the requirements of the contemporaneous objection rule in non-capital cases, State v. Dobson, 578 So.2d 533 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), writ denied, 588 So.2d 1110 (La. 1991), support our conclusion that Cage is not a watershed rule

1992In the present case, however, the trial judge's instruction followed the reasonable doubt standard, although he used terms later found to be erroneous. [5] Moreover, the previous holdings that the Cage error can be harmless, State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), and that the Cage error is subject to the requirements of the contemporaneous objection rule in non-capital cases, State v. Dobson, 578 So.2d 533 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), writ denied, 588 So.2d 1110 (La. 1991), support our conclusion that Cage is not a watershed rule

1992In the present case, however, the trial judge's instruction followed the reasonable doubt standard, although he used terms later found to be erroneous. [5] Moreover, the previous holdings that the Cage error can be harmless, State v. Cage, 583 So.2d 1125 (La.1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 211 , 116 L.Ed.2d 170 (1991), and that the Cage error is subject to the requirements of the contemporaneous objection rule in non-capital cases, State v. Dobson, 578 So.2d 533 (La.App. 4th Cir.1991), writ denied, 588 So.2d 1110 (La. 1991), support our conclusion that Cage is not a watershed rule