case announces a new rule in Pennsylvania

2020Many courts, however, have highlighted the “considerable ambiguity in the threshold requirement that [the] court must announce a ‘new’ legal rule.” Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204, 227 (D.C. 2001);14 accord Teague, 489 U.S. at, 301, 109 S. Ct. at 1070 (recognizing that “[i]t is admittedly often difficult to determine when a case announces a new rule”).15 Moreover, while judicial decisions declaring statutes unconstitutional may not readily fit the paradigm of new rules or principles of law, particularly when the underlying constitutional precepts are well established, the Supreme Court of the Uni

2016Generally “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Teague, 489 U.S. at 301 .

2015See, e.g., Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 62 , 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2714 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987) (per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony infringes impermissibly on a criminal defendant's right to testify on his behalf); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410 , 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2602 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of prisoners who are insane).

2015See, e.g., Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 62 , 107 S.Ct. 2704, 2714 , 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987) (per se rule excluding all hypnotically refreshed testimony infringes impermissibly on a criminal defendant's right to testify on his behalf); Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 410 , 106 S.Ct. 2595, 2602 , 91 L.Ed.2d 335 (1986) (Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of prisoners who are insane).

2020Many courts, however, have highlighted the “considerable ambiguity in the threshold requirement that [the] court must announce a ‘new’ legal rule.” Davis v. Moore, 772 A.2d 204, 227 (D.C. 2001);14 accord Teague, 489 U.S. at, 301, 109 S. Ct. at 1070 (recognizing that “[i]t is admittedly often difficult to determine when a case announces a new rule”).15 Moreover, while judicial decisions declaring statutes unconstitutional may not readily fit the paradigm of new rules or principles of law, particularly when the underlying constitutional precepts are well established, the Supreme Court of the Uni

2020Davis, 772 A.2d at 226 -27 (citing Sunburst Oil, 287 U.S. at 364-65 , 53 S. Ct. at 148 ). 15 The District of Columbia Court of Appeals elaborated as follows: When is a legal rule “new” enough to meet this requirement?

2015See Muhammed, 992 A.2d at 903 . -5- J-S38028-15 constitute a new rule for retroactivity purposes[,]” this Court explained that generally, “a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government.” Id. at *5 (citations omitted).

2015Id. at 301 (emphasis in original); see also Hughes, supra at 780 .

2013See Teague 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 ("In general ... a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government” or "was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final” (emphasis in original)); see also Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 467 , 113 S.Ct. 892, 898 , 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) (explaining that "unless reasonable jurists hearing [a] petitioner's claim at the time his conviction became final 'would have felt compelled by existing precedent' to rule in his favor, we are barred

2013See Teague 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 ("In general ... a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government” or "was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final” (emphasis in original)); see also Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 467 , 113 S.Ct. 892, 898 , 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) (explaining that "unless reasonable jurists hearing [a] petitioner's claim at the time his conviction became final 'would have felt compelled by existing precedent' to rule in his favor, we are barred

2013See Teague 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 ("In general ... a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government” or "was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final” (emphasis in original)); see also Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 467 , 113 S.Ct. 892, 898 , 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) (explaining that "unless reasonable jurists hearing [a] petitioner's claim at the time his conviction became final 'would have felt compelled by existing precedent' to rule in his favor, we are barred

2013See Teague 489 U.S. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. at 1070 ("In general ... a case announces a new rule when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation on the States or the Federal Government” or "was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final” (emphasis in original)); see also Graham v. Collins, 506 U.S. 461, 467 , 113 S.Ct. 892, 898 , 122 L.Ed.2d 260 (1993) (explaining that "unless reasonable jurists hearing [a] petitioner's claim at the time his conviction became final 'would have felt compelled by existing precedent' to rule in his favor, we are barred

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende

1999Id. at 301 , 109 S.Ct. 1060 ; see also Commonwealth v. Christy, 540 Pa. 192, 216 , 656 A.2d 877 , cert. denied, *577 516 U.S. 872 , 116 S.Ct. 194 , 133 L.Ed.2d 130 (1995) (a case which breaks with past precedent is not applicable retroactively to cases final on direct appeal but pending in a collateral proceeding); Commonwealth v. Todaro, 549 Pa. 545 , 701 A.2d 1343, 1347 (1997) (even a case which breaks with past precedent that is given a fully retroactive effect is not applied to any case on collateral review unless the decision announcing the new rule of law was handed down during the pende