WPC &͵?t_ea[=wbk"Jj{`ýlxuIWfDLyjnU'H@6"mr)3-| Y[!Uz `c {pAOhv]Gb j )Ϊ"bBD$(3Q߭?)lX2y4@U+Z8xLv$xz+@wԖ%WONНx Tn_??ҏ:(_ZG{g=xk_ m EМcOd4qHp+$ɻw8ThхP YA߄.a 'r{8mj~{r ʼ`DO:6茔e]މo$3ignrBF ֌ #ذUv͵t#!XU}Ny % 0( ^ w@ 4A U d mf 0C} 0v U.6 ^( d ^ p ^ | ^ 1u  N ^ ! - ^ B 1N ^ ^  0c  1h^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^  1^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ (^ 4^ @^ L^ X^ d^ p^ |^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ $^ 0^ <^ H^ T^ `^ l^ x^  B^ ^ ^  D+^ ^  A^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^  A+ 0D 0K ^ Wc{HP LaserJet 5,,,,0(hH  Z6Times New Roman RegularX($Z) vvDU`<)({Backup3|xU($    (-!2Vf$ !  Ӏ  0  <6X9`(Courierj(j(j(j(##37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)   j(   j(05CEKQW]cioAutoList11.A.1.1.1.1.1.1.j(j(Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(;3$2#  0  .3  0  Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(CEKQW]cioAutoList2A.A.A.A.A.A.A.A.Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5  j(j(j(j(j(j((UhCEKQW]cioAutoList31.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.j(j(j(j( interspousalKilbourneHanzelickLononDupuis Ruch"criminalizationBrinkerhoff SavCarmellj(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j( dj(j(j('dxdj(j(_[&Draw Object <<=8C HKKKKLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(j(op[ I&mage <=8C HKKKK(3$ !  ( $ Figure  1  j(   !  _8  XXdd8  fXXXX"^@%NO.996218    @%      @*@ww' INTHE     SUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES  |  @@% \  @@77WILBERTK.ROGERS, @  @ Petitioner, @  ,P  Ѐ@@SS)VS.@@ STATEOFTENNESSEE,Respondent.  @@%  @@:: ONWRITOFCERTIORARI@@V V TOTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE@@% | @@ BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAE,TENNESSEEASSOCIATIONOF \ CRIMINALDEFENSELAWYERS,INSUPPORTOFTHEPETITIONER @@%򀀀 !   @4  @  @  @< PAULAR.VOSS,CounselofRecordforAmicusCuriae @4  @  @  @< TENNESSEEASSOCIATIONOFCRIMINALDEFENSELAWYERS & # 1209EuclidAvenue '!$ Knoxville,TN37921 @4  @  @  @< Telephone:(865)59461200 @4   L,p&)   i    i  8  XXd XXd8 @@ QUESTIONPRESENTEDFORREVIEW  \    4 Whethertheretroactiveapplicationofajudicialabolishmentofthesubstantiveruleofcriminallawknownasthe"yearandadayrule"toanassaultcommittedfiveyearspriortothatabolishmentviolatestheFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution?  +#& Ї@" TABLEOFCONTENTS  l x x D!PageQuestionPresented!!G!.  i ,  TableofContents!!F!.t t ii   TableofAuthoritiesT!T!E!.0 0 iii  InterestofAmicusCuriae!!G!. %1 `  StatementoftheCase!!G!. !2 @  SummaryoftheArgument!!G!.@@#3   Argument!!G!.  6 l #XXXX#IXXXX0 4 #XXXIX4 #XXXX 4!4! b )(Uh8#bӚ1.8 4 TheFourteenthAmendmentsguaranteeofdueprocessoflawwas < violatedbytheretroactiveapplicationoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtsabolitionofcommonlaw yearandadayrule.#!!G!.88?44#6  2.8 4 #XXXX˔ #5XXXXThiscaserequiresanextensionoftheprinciplesregardingtheretroactive  applicationofjudicialdecisionmakingsetforthinBouiev.Columbiato  othercircumstancesinwhichtheexpostfactolawswouldbarthesameactionbyalegislativebody.#XXX5Xˁ #XXXX#4!4!F!..44#11 ` ̚ 󚚚Conclusion4!4!F!.l l 14 !@   L'" f    8  XXd XXd8rW+sW+@  TABLEOFAUTHORITIES  L  CASES: <  Bouiev.CityofColumbia,378U.S.347(1964)   #XXXX#Brinkerhoff-FarisTrust&Sav.Co.v.Hill,281U.S.673XXXX   Calderv.Bull,3Dall.386(1798) p  0 4  Carmellv.Texas,򀀀U.S.򀀀,120S.Ct.1620(2000)P 4!4! #XXXXˊ#\XXXXDavisv.Davis,657S.W.2d753(Tenn.1983)#XXX\Xˣ#XXXX 0  #XXXX#ZXXXXDupuisv.Hand,814S.W.2d340(Tenn.1991) | #XXXZXm#]XXXXFordMotorCo.v.Lonon,398S.W.2d240(1966)#XXX]X#`XXXX \ Frankv.Magnum,237U.S.309(1915)#XXX`Xo#ZXXXX < Hanoverv.Ruch,809S.W.2d893(Tenn.1991)  #XXXZX#ZXXXXKilbournev.Hanzelick,648S.W.2d932(Tenn.1983)   4 #XXXZXː#XXXX0 4  Louisville,Evansville,&St.LouisR.R.Co.v.Clarke,152U.S.230(1894)p4!4! Marksv.UnitedStates,430U.S.188(1977)  P #XXXX4#cXXXXMillerv.Florida,#XXXcXG#dXXXX482U.S.423(1987)#XXXdX˛#XXXX "0 Percerv.State,103S.W.780(Tenn.1907) |$ #XXXX#eXXXXStatev.Rogers,#XXXeX˕#fXXXX1997WL642309(Tenn.Crim.App)#XXXfX#XXXX \&! Statev.Rogers,992S.W.2d393(Tenn.1999) <( # Statev.Ruane,912S.W.2d766(Tenn.Crim.App.1995) *"% Statev.Watkins,130S.W.839(Tenn.1910) +$' sW+ s s  _  iv  @    4  A  Weaver_Ԁv.Graham,450U.S.24(1981) l CONSTITUTIONALPROVISIONS: L  U.S.Const.Amend.XIV1Tenn.Const.Art.I20STATUTES: p   Tenn.CodeAnn.174114(1994)#XXXXM#qXXXXTenn.CodeAnn.3911104(1997)#XXXqXo#XXXX 0  OTHERAUTHORITIES: l #XXXX#aXXXXJohnGibeaut,#XXXaX]#bXXXXԀ TakingAim,ABAJournal,Vol.82,Nov.1996#XXXbXˬ#XXXX L @*@*   @ BRIEFOFAMICUSCURIAE, \   TENNESSEEASSOCIATIONOFCRIMINALDEFENSELAWYERS @@%򀀀 <   STATEMENTOFTHEINTERESTSOFAMICUSCURIAE    @@*   4 TheTennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers(TACDL)filesthisamicuscuriaebriefpursuanttoSupremeCourtRule37.3(a),insupportofthePetitioner,WilbertRogers.Consentwasgrantedby#XXXX(#gXXXXW.MarkWard,#XXXgX*!#XXXXԀcounselforthePetitioner,and   #XXXXy!#hXXXXMichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral#XXXhX!#XXXXԀfortheStateofTennessee.Therequiredlettersof l consentarefiledwiththisbrief. 4 TheTennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyerswasincorporatedin1973asanonprofitorganizationandcurrentlyhassevenhundredandtwentymembers.Itspurposeistoprovideeducation,trainingandsupporttolawyerswhorepresentcitizensoftheStateofTennesseeaccusedofcrimes.TheAssociationadvocatesafairandeffectivecriminaljusticesysteminthecourts,thelegislatureandwhereverjusticedemands.Oneofthestatedpurposesoftheorganizationistoprotectandinsure,byruleoflaw,thoseindividualrightsguaranteedbytheconstitutionsoftheUnitedStatesandtheStateofTennessee. 4 ThequestionpresentedbythisappealisonewhichaffectsallcitizensoftheStateofTennessee,notjustthenamedpetitioner.TheTennesseeSupremeCourtsactionin  +#& thiscaseconstitutesamarkeddeparturefromanyprior,establishedpractice.ItsretroactiveapplicationdeniedthecitizensofthisStatefairnoticeofthestateofthelaw,thusjeopardizingtheirrightstothefundamentalfairnessanddueprocessguaranteedbytheFourteenthAmendment.TheTennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyersisconcernedthatthisdecisioncouldsignificantlyaltertheabilityofthecriminallyaccusedofthisstatetorelyonthesubstantivelawsineffectatthetimeofthecommissionofacrime,andconcernedthatafailuretoexpandtheholdingofBouietoactionsofthis @  naturewillresultinfurthererosionofthoseimportantconstitutionalrights.Forthisreason,TACDLrespectfullyfilesthisbrief,insupportofMr.Rogersarguments. 4 @ @@  STATEMENTOFTHECASE   @* @@* 4 OnMay7,1994,thepetitioner,WilbertK.Rogers,assaultedthevictim,stabbinghimwithabutcherknife.HewasindictedonAugust9,1994,andchargedwithattemptedfirstdegreemurder.ThevictimlingeredinacomaforapproximatelysixteenmonthsuntilhisdeathinAugustof1995.OnSeptember12,1995,anewindictmentwasreturnedbythe#XXXXU"#XXXXXGrandJury#XXXXX˄+#XXXXԀofShelbyCounty,Tennessee,charginghimwithfirstdegree L'" murder. 4 Followingajurytrial,Mr.Rogerswasconvictedofthelesserincludedoffenseof  +#& _seconddegreemurderandreceivedasentenceofthirtythreeyears.OnappealtotheTennesseeCourtofCriminalAppeals,thepetitionerarguedtheconvictioncouldnotstandbecauseofthecommonlawyearandadayrule,whichprovidedthatacitizencouldnotbechargedwithmurderifdeathoccurredmorethanayearandadayaftertheinitialassault.#XXXX+#XXXXStatev.Rogers,#XXXXX.#XXXX1997WL642309(Tenn.Crim.App.1997).#XXXX˱.#XXXXThe  intermediateappellatecourtdeniedrelief,holdingthattheyearandadayrulehadbeenabolishedbytheTennesseeStateLegislaturein1989,whenitrecodifiedthecriminalcode.TheCourtofCriminalAppealsreasonedthattheyearandadayrulewasacommonlawdefense,andthefailureoftheLegislaturetolistitasanaffirmativedefensesinthenewcoderesultedinitsabolition.Id.atp. 4 OnappealtotheTennesseeSupremeCourt,theverdictandsentencewereupheld,butondifferentgrounds.#XXXX/#XXXXStatev.Rogers,#XXXX˂1#XXXX992S.W.2d393(Tenn.1999).#XXXX1#XXXXTheTennessee   SupremeCourtruledthattheyearandadayrulewasnotacommonlawdefense,andwas#XXXX;2#UXXXXԀnotabolishedbytheLegislaturein1989.#XXXUX2#XXXXThestateconcededthatitwasa ` substantiveelementofthecrimeofmurder.TheSupremeCourtfoundnojustificationforcontinuingtorequiretheapplicationoftheyearandadayruleinthefaceofadvancesinmodernmedicine,however,andjudiciallyabolishedtherule. 4 Thesubjectofthisappeal,however,andtheconcernofamicuscuriae,isnottheabolitionoftheyearandadayrulebytheTennesseeSupremeCourt,butitsretroactiveapplicationoftheabolitiontoacrimewhichoccurredalmostfiveyearstotheday_before  +#& theSupremeCourtspronouncementofitsremovalfromthelawsoftheStateofTennessee.   P'SUMMARYOFTHEARGUMENT    #XXXXc3#%XXXX   4 TheFourteenthAmendmentsguaranteeofdueprocessoflawwasviolatedbythe `  retroactiveapplicationoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtsabolitionofthecommonlaw yearandadayruleinthiscase.ThisCourtruled,in#XXX%X˼6#&XXXXBouiev.CityofColumbia,378   U.S.347(1964)#XXX&X8#%XXXX,thatcourtsshouldnotbepermittedtodobyjudicialaction,what l legislaturesareforbiddentodobyexpostfactoconsiderations.AlthoughBouiedealt L withthejudicialinterpretationofastatute,thesameconsiderationsshouldapplywhenacourtjudiciallyabolishesacommonlawdoctrinefavorabletoadefendantandappliesitretroactivelytoconvicthimofamuchgreatercrimethanthatforwhichhecouldotherwisebepunished. 4 InMr.Rogerscase,theTennesseeSupremeCourtdidnotproperlyapplyBouie !@ inmakingthedecisiononretroactiveapplication.Theycitedthelawofotherstatesastheirprimarysupportforafindingthattheiractionwasnot unforeseeabletothecitizensofTennessee,apracticespecificallycriticizedinBouie.Idat359.Theygavelittleeffect L'" tothefactthatthedoctrinewaswellestablishedinTennessee,andhadnotbeenoverturned,eitherbyjudicialorlegislativeaction.Instead,theypointedtoafailureofthe  +#& appellatecourtstocitefrequentlytothecaseswhichrecognizedthedoctrine,andlanguageinalowercourtdecision,issuedamorethanayearaftertheinitialattackonthisvictim,whichindicateda1989criminalcoderevisionmayhaveabolisheditasacommonlawdefense.Rogers,992S.W.2dat402.    4 #XXX%Xˠ8#?XXXXԚTheabolitiontheyearandadayrulewasunforeseeableandconstituteda  substantialdeparturefromthepriorstatusofthecommonlawineffectatthetimeofthecommissionofthecrimeinthiscase.DespitetheSupremeCourtsstatementthattheretroactivityoftheiraction#XXX?Xˠ>#@XXXXԀ doesnotallowtheStatetoobtainaconvictionuponless   proof,nordoesitsabolitionimposecriminalsanctionsforconductthatwasheretoforeinnocent,Rogersat402,thereisnoanalysisofthosecontentions,andnothinginthe L recordtosupportsuchafinding.Infact,theactionoftheCourtinMr.Rogerscasewouldhaveviolatedalloftheprohibitionsagainstexpostfactolawsifdonebyalegislativebody.#XXX@X@#AXXXXCalderv.Bull,3Dall.386(1798),Rogersat402,citingStatev.  Pearson,858S.W.2d879,881(Tenn.1993);Millerv.State,584S.W.2d758,761 ` (Tenn.1979)(adoptingthecategoriesidentifiedinCalderandstatingthat"everylaw !@ which,inrelationtotheoffenseoritsconsequences,altersthesituationofapersontohisdisadvantage"constitutesanexpostfactolaw).#XXXAX=B#@XXXX 4 #XXX@XOD#%XXXXԀ#XXX%X˝D#XXXXOfgreatconcerntoamicuscuriaeisthefactthattheSupremeCourtjustifiedits L'" actionbyrelianceoncasesinvolvingcivilcommonlaw,whichtenetsdonottakeintoconsiderationtherightsofthecriminallyaccused,ortherequirementsofdueprocessof  +#& lawinacriminalsetting.#XXXXD#BXXXXԀTheopinionalsoappearstorequirethecitizensofTennesseeto l becomelearnedinthelawofallthestatesofthisnationinorderto foreseewhetherornotthecriminallawsofthisstatemightbechanged,withoutpriornoticefromitsowncourtsorstatelegislature.Finally,theimplicationsofpermittingthehighestCourtoftheStatetosingleoutindividualcitizensforretroactivetreatment,anotheractionnotlegislativelypermittedundertheexpostfactolaws,shouldbegivengreatconsiderationbythisCourt,andtheconvictionformurdershouldbereversed.#XXXBXiF#%XXXX @  #XXX%X I#XXXX  ARGUMENT  l    4    <      D  4 TheTennesseeSupremeCourtreversedahundredyearsofcommonlawprecedentinthiscase,andgaveitretroactiveapplicationsoastodepriveWilbertRogersofhisrighttorelyonaprincipleoflawwhichexistedatthetimehiscrimewascommitted.Itdidsobyjudiciallyabolishingthewellestablishedcommonlawrequirementthatadeathoccurwithinayearandadayoftheinitialassaulttoconstituteamurder.TheactionoftheSupremeCourtwasnotbasedonanyvalidprecedent,thusitsapplicationtoMr.RogersviolatedtheFourteenthAmendmentsdueprocessrequirementsoffairwarningandfundamentalfairnessandconstitutedanunforeseeablechangeinthelawwhichshouldnothavebeenappliedretroactively.#XXXXeI#(XXXXBouiev.Cityof ,)!$ Columbia,378U.S.347(1964)#XXX(X&M#XXXX.Thiscasealsorequiresanextensionoftheprinciples  +#& regardingtheretroactiveapplicationofjudicialdecisionmakingsetforthinBouieto l othercircumstancesinwhichtheexpostfactolawswouldbarthesameactionbyalegislativebody.#XXXX˭M#  JXXXX1.8 4 TheFourteenthAmendmentsguaranteeofdueprocessoflawwas  violatedbytheretroactiveapplicationoftheTennesseeSupremeCourtsabolitionofcommonlaw yearandadayrule. 44  0 4 #XXXJX.O#XXXX 4!4!  4 TheTennesseeSupremeCourtnotedinitsopinionthattheyearandadayrulewasanancientconceptdatingbacktoatleastthethirteenthcentury.ItwasrecognizedbytheUnitedStatesSupremeCourtasearlyas1894,#XXXX}P#DXXXXLouisville,Evansville,&St.LouisR.R. L Co.v.Clarke,152U.S.230(1894)#XXXDXQ#XXXX,andcitedinTennesseecaselawasanestablished , principleofcommonlawin1907.#XXXX}R#*XXXXPercerv.State,103S.W.780(Tenn.1907)#XXX*X,S#XXXX.The   Courtfoundtherulewasnotanaffirmativedefensetoachargeofmurder,but evenmorepowerfulthanadefensebecauseitentirelyprecludesamurderprosecution.#XXXX˛S#XXXXState ` v.Rogers,#XXXX˧T#XXXX992S.W.2d393,#XXXXU#XXXX400#XXXXfU#XXXX(Tenn.1999).TheCourtalsoagreedwithpetitionerthat !@ thisimportantelementhadnotbeenabolishedby#XXXXˬU#XXXXasweepingrevisionofthecriminal #  codes#XXXXmV#XXXXԀbytheTennesseeLegislature#XXXXV#XXXXԀin1989.Idat400. l%  P 4 TheCourtfound,instead,thatthiscommonlawprincipalhadoutliveditsusefulnessand advancesinmedicalscience,improvedtrialprocedure,andsentencingreformhaveerodedthereasonsoriginallysupportingthecommonlawyear-and-a-day  +#& rule.Id.at401.#XXXXLW#XXXXBasedprimarilyoncaselawfromotherstateswhichhadpreviously l abandonedtherule,theCourtdeclareditsintentiontoabolishitinTennessee,aswell.TheCourtthenfoundtherewouldbenodueprocessviolationinapplyingtheabolitionofthelawretroactivelytoMr.Rogerscasebecausetheiractionwasnotunforeseeable.Theirdecisionwithregardtoforeseeabilitywasbasedon:1)theabolitionoftherulebyotherstates,2)languagefromalowercourtopinionissuedaftertheinitialattackinthiscase,3)thefailureofthe1989coderevisiontoincorporatethedoctrineintothenewstatutoryscheme,and4)anunsupportedopinionthatretroactiveapplicationwouldnotviolatecertainoftheexpostfactoruleswhichapplytolegislativeactions.Id.at402. 4 TheCourtsopinionisinternallyinconsistent,inconsistentwiththelawsofTennesseeandinconsistentwiththelawestablishedbythisCourtinBouie.#XXXXY# XXXXDespitethe , Courtsstatementtothecontrary,relianceonthefactorssetforthabovetosupportaretroactiveapplicationoftheabolitionofacommonlawdoctrineare#XXXX5]##XXXXnotsupportedbythe  legalprecedentofthisstate.TheCourtnotedithas"nothesitatedtoabolishobsoletecommon-lawdoctrines,"andrecognized"aspecialdutytodosowhereitistheCourt,ratherthantheLegislature,whichhasrecognizedandnurtured"thecommonlawrule,citingtoDupuisv.Hand,814S.W.2d340,345(Tenn.1991)(abolishingthetortof l%  alienationofaffection).Dupuis,inturncitestoHanoverv.Ruch,809S.W.2d893 L'" (Tenn.1991)(abolishingthetortofcriminalconversation);#XXX#X8^##XXXXKilbournev.Hanzelick,648 ,)!$ S.W.2d932,934(Tenn.1983)(abolishingdiscriminatoryruledenyingliabilityofwifefor  +#& supportofhusband);Davisv.Davis,657S.W.2d753,758(Tenn.1983)(abolishing l interspousaltortimmunitydoctrine);andFordMotorCo.v.Lonon,217Tenn.400,398 L  S.W.2d240(1966)(abolishingprivityrequirementinstricttort).#XXX#X`##XXXXRogersat400.#XXX#Xb##XXXXԀ#XXX#X$c#0XXXX ,   4 Thecasescitedaboveareallcivilcases,however,inwhichtenetsofthecivilcommonlawwereabolished.Ithaslongbeenrecognizedthatcivilmattersarenotsubjecttothestricturesoftheexpostfactolaws.#XXX0Xgc#EXXXXCalderv.Bull,3Dall.386(1798)#XXXEX˧d#FXXXX.#XXXFXe#GXXXXԀ#XXXGXQe#0XXXXԀ#XXX0X˔e#HXXXXThe `  casescitedbytheCourtdidnotrelyonexpostfactoprinciples,ortheconceptofdueprocess,butratherontheprovisionagainst retrospectivelawsfoundinArt.I,Sec.20oftheTennesseeConstitution.The#XXXHXe#0XXXXstandardforretroactiveapplicationinsuchcasesis l clearlydifferentfromthosewhichapplytocriminalcasesandshouldnotbecitedassupportfortheseactions.#XXX0Xg##XXXXHanover,supraat896.Infact,theTennesseeSupremeCourt , doesnotappeartohaveeveractedtoabolishatenetofcommonlawdoctrine#XXX#Xh#XXXXinthe   criminalcontext,thusitcannotbesaidthatthisactionwasforeseeabletothecitizensofTennessee. 4 OtherreasonsgivenbytheCourttosupportretroactiveapplicationalsofallshortofprovingthatachangeinthelawwasforeseeabletotheaveragecitizenofTennessee.TheCourtspeculatedthattheinfrequencywithwhichthe#XXXXh#iXXXXԀyearandadayrule#XXXiX˴j#XXXXhadbeen l%  citedtheappellatecourtssupportedafindingthatitwasobsoleteandlittleusedinthestate.Rogersat396.Infact,itismoreindicativeofthefactthatcasesinwhichthe ,)!$ victimdidnotdiewithinayearandadaywerenotchargedasmurdercases,butratheras  +#& lessercharges,asthedoctrinerequires.Norshouldanintermediateappellatecourtopinionissuedin1995beconsideredadequatenoticetoMr.Rogersthattheyearandadayrulewassubjecttochange.Thisopinionwasissuedmorethanayearaftertheinitialattackoccurred.#XXXX k#1XXXXStatev.Ruane,912S.W.2d766,774(Tenn.Crim.App.1995)#XXX1Xm#XXXX.Ruane   merelynotedthatthe defenseoftheyearandadayrulemayhavebeenabrogatedby  the1989revisionstotheTennesseecriminalcode.TheaccuracyofthisfindingwassubsequentlydisavowedbytheSupremeCourtinMr.Rogersowncase,whereitwasnotedthedoctrinewasnotadefense,andcouldnothavebeenabolishedbythecoderevisionsinanycase.Rogersat400.ItisunfairfortheCourttosaythefaultyrationale l ofthelowercourt,issuedlongafterthecommissionofthecrime,putthispetitioneronnoticeofapendingchangeinacenturyoldtenetofthecommonlaw.Likewise,theCourtsallegationthatthefailureofthe1989coderevisiontomentionthedoctrinelackspersuasion.Theyearandadayrulewasnevercodified,andagainaccordingtotheRogersopinion,couldnothavebeenabolishedbytheLegislature.Rogersat400. `  4 Although emphasizingthat abolitionoftheruledoesnotallowtheStatetoobtainaconvictionuponlessproof,nordoesitsabolitionimposecriminalsanctionsforconductthatwasheretoforeinnocent,Rogersat402,theCourtprovidednoanalysisfor l%  thosecontentions,andnothingintherecordsupportssuchfindings.#XXXXGn#XXXXԀInactuality,the L'" CourtremovedtheStatesburdenofprovingapreviouslyrequiredelementoftheoffense,clearlyalesserevidentiarystandardfortheState.#XXXXs#QXXXXԀCarmellv.Texas,򀀀U.S.___,  +#& 120S.Ct.1620,1627(2000)#XXXQXt#XXXX.#XXXXˁu#XXXXԀ#XXXXu#XXXXItalsoincreasedthecrimeforwhichMr.Rogerswas l accountablefromattemptedmurdertofirstdegreemurder.Thus,althoughitmaynothaveimposedacriminalsanctiononpreviously innocentbehavior,itcertainlyviolatedtwootherstandardsestablishedinCalderbycreating a#XXXX v#Ԁlawwhichaggravatesacrimeor   makesitgreaterthanwhenitwascommittedor alawthatchangespunishmentorinflictsagreaterpunishmentthanthelawannexedtothecrimewhenitwascommitted.TheseareclearlyactionswhichtheTennesseeLegislaturewouldnotbepermittedtoenactundereitherthestateorfederalexpostfactorules,andthereisabsolutelynorationaleforpermittinganidenticalencroachmentonthedueprocessrightsofthecitizenaccusedinTennesseeundertheauspicesofretroactivejudicialaction. 4 TheTennesseeSupremeCourtoverruledaconsistentlineofproceduraldecisionsandalongestablishedtenetofcommonlaw,andgaveitretroactiveeffect,deprivingMr.Rogersofdueprocessoflaw initsprimarysenseofanopportunitytobeheardandtodefend(his)substantiveright.Brinkerhoff-FarisTrust&Sav.Co.v.Hill,281U.S.673. ` Thisunforeseeablestatecourtconstructionofacriminalstatute,appliedretroactively,deprivedthepetitioneroffairwarningthathiscontemplatedconductwouldconstituteagreatercrimethanitwouldhaveinthepast.Bouieat1703.6XXXXIftheactionsofthisstates l%  highestcourtarepermittedtostandinthiscase,furtherarbitrary,retroactiveapplicationsofthisnaturecanbeexpected,andneitherdefendants,norcounsel,willbeabletopredictinadvancewhatactionsmightbepunished,orwhatthepunishmentforonesactions  +#& mightbe.#XXX6XG|#LXXXX 2.8 4 #XXXLX}#MXXXXThiscaserequiresanextensionoftheprinciplesregardingthe ,  retroactiveapplicationofjudicialdecisionmakingsetforthinBouie   v.Columbiatoothercircumstancesinwhichtheexpostfactolaws   wouldbarthesameactionbyalegislativebody.#XXXMXZ~#OXXXX  44 #XXXOX#~6XXXX 4 TheBouiedecisionappliedtherationaleoftheexpostfactolaws,generally `  recognizedasbeingapplicableonlytoactionsofalegislature,#XXX6XX#PXXXXFrankv.Magnum,237 @  U.S.309(1915)#XXXPXS#6XXXX,totheretroactiveapplicationofacourtsstatutoryinterpretation.The   sameevilswhicharisewhenalegislativebodychangesthelawsafterthecommissionofacrime,exposingadefendanttogreaterpunishment,ortothecriminalizationofactionswhichwerenotcriminalatthetime,werefoundoffensivetotheDueProcessprovisionoftheFourteenthAmendmentwhenaccomplishedbyjudicialaction.Bouieinvolvedthe   judicialinterpretationofanarrowlywrittenstatutewhichenlargedtheactivitiessubjecttocriminalpenaltybeyondpreviousinterpretationsbythestatecourts.#XXX6XЁ#RXXXXMarksv.United ` States,430U.S.188(1977)#XXXRX˘#6XXXX.TheharmtheCourtsoughttoprotectinBouiewasthe !@ failureofthestatetoprovidefairwarningtoitscitizensthatthelawwouldbeappliedinsuchafashionbeforeapplyingitretroactively. 4 Dueprocessconcernsalsoparallelotheraspectsoftheexpostfactoprovisions.#XXX6X#jXXXXOneimportantreasonforthetheselawswastoensurelegislativeenactmentswould"give ,)!$ fairwarningoftheireffectandpermitindividualstorelyontheirmeaninguntilexplicitly  +#& _changed."Weaverv.Graham,450U.S.24,2829(1981)#XXXjXˡ#jXXXX;Calderat388.#XXXjX#kXXXXMillerv. l Florida,#XXXkXj#jXXXX482U.S.423,(1987).#XXXjX҈#6XXXXԀAnotherreasontheExPostFactoClauseswereincluded L  intheConstitutionwastoassurethatfederalandstatelegislatureswererestrainedfromenactingarbitraryorvindictivelegislationand#XXX6X.#SXXXXpreventinglegislativeabuses#XXXSXH#6XXXX.Calderat   389.#XXX6X˧#6XXXXԀ#XXX6X# 򚚚 6XXXXTheobviousreasonforapplyingthesechecksonthelegislatureswasthepolitical  pressuresfacedbyelectedlegislatorswhoneedtomaintainfavorwithvotersandsupportersandmightactagainstadisenfranchised,unpopularindividualorgroupofindividualsforpoliticalgain. 4 Unlikefederaljudges,the#XXX6Xi#8XXXXappellate#XXX8X#6XXXXԀjudgesofTennessee,andmanyotherstates, l aresubjecttopopularelectionsforretention.In1994,theTennesseeLegislature L establishedthe TennesseePlanfortheselectionandretentionofappellatejudges.#XXX6XM#mXXXXTenn.CodeAnn.174114.#XXXmX˟#6XXXXԀAlthoughnomineesforthebenchareselectedbya   bipartisancommissionandappointedbythegovernor,incumbentsmuststandforreelectioneveryeightyears.In1996,JusticePennyWhitewasremovedfromtheTennesseeSupremeCourtthroughthisprocess,inlargepartbecauseofthepublicperception,widelypublicizedacrossthestate,thatshehadruledtooadvantageouslyforanappellantchargedwithanespeciallyheinouscrime.NoristhispoliticalizationofthejudiciarylimitedtothestateofTennessee.See,#XXX6X#YXXXXԀJohnGibeaut,#XXXYXf#6XXXXԀ TakingAim,ABA L'" Journal,Vol.82,Nov.1996. 4 AmicuscuriaedoesnotcontendthatanyofthejusticesontheTennessee_Court  +#& actedforpoliticalgain,oranyotherimproperpurposeinthis,oranyothercase.Yetthefactthattheymuststandforpopularelectioncannotbeignored,and#XXX6X˶#9XXXXtheneedtoprotect L  anindividualsrightstoafairtrialanddueprocessoflaw,andguardagainsttheundueinfluenceofpublicopinion,mustbegivenheightenedconsiderationinviewoftheserecent,publicchanges.Becauseofthe#XXX9Xl#6XXXXrequirementthatTennesseesjudgesstandfor  reelection,therationaleforapplyingthesamestandardsrequiredbytheexpostfactocases#XXX6X˲#lXXXXtotheirretroactivedecisionmaking#XXXlX˗#6XXXXԀisstrongerthanitmighthavebeeninthepast. @  Differenceswhichmighthavearguablyexistedbetweentheapplicationofabanagainstretroactivelawmakingonthepartoflegislatures,andretroactiveinterpretationonthepartofthejudiciary,arenolongersodistinctastorequireseparatestandardsofapplication. 4 Likewise,thefactthattheactiontakenbytheSupremeCourtinthiscaseismorecloselyrelatedtolegislativeactionthantothenormalinterpretivefunctionsoftheCourtshouldbegivenconsiderableweightindeterminingwhethertoholdtheCourttothestrictrequirementsofBouie.TheCourtitselfnoted aspecialdutyto[abolishobsolete !@ common-lawdoctrines]#XXX6X#6XXXXwhereitistheCourt,ratherthantheLegislature,whichhas #  recognizedandnurturedthecommonlawrule.Rogersat400.#XXX6X9#6XXXXԀYettheTennessee l%  Legislaturehasindicatedthatthecommonlawshouldbeusedtointerpretthecurrentprovisionsofthecriminalcode,makingthestateofthecommonlawofcontinuingimportanceandapplication.Tenn.CodeAnn.3911104.Thenatureofthisaction,in  +#& andofitself,therefore,addssupporttotheargumentofamicuscuriaethatBouieshould l bebroadenedtopreservedueprocessoflawinsimilarcircumstances. 4 TheTennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyersrespectfullyrequeststhatthisCourtextendtherationaleofBouietoprotectthecitizensofthis,andeverystate,   fromarbitrary,retroactiveapplicationsofjudicialdecisionmakingwhichcreateaclimateofuncertaintyandthepossibilityof#XXX6X#XXXXunfairorvindictivelawmakingfromthebench. `  BecausethesesafeguardswerenotappliedinMr.Rogerscase,hisconvictionmustbesetaside. 4    <   @*@  _________________________ #XXXX˩#XXXX@FF% CONCLUSION     4 TheopiniontheSupremeCourtofTennesseeinWilbertRogerscaseshouldbereversed.TheCourtsactionwasasignificantdeparturefromthelongstandingcommonlawandcaseprecedentsinthisstate.Asitcannotbecharacterizedasanexpectedoranticipateddevelopmentinthelaw,retroactiveapplicationofthejudicialabolishmentoftheyearandadayruletoPetitionerviolatedtheFourteenthAmendmentoftheUnitedStatesConstitution.ThiscaseshouldberemandedtotheSupremeCourtofTennesseeforadeterminationastowhetherPetitionerssentencemaybemodifiedtoalesser  +#& offenseorwhetheranewtrialisrequired. 4    < Respectfullysubmitted, 4    <    @4  @  @  @< PaulaR.Voss,    CounselofRecordfor#XXXXj#VXXXXAmicusCuriae#XXXVXͣ#XXXX p   @4  @  @  @< TennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers @4  @  @  @< 1209EuclidAvenue @4  @  @  @< Knoxville,TN37921 @4  @  @  @< Telephone:(865)5946120 @4  @  @  @<  @ _    @@ CERTIFICATEOFSERVICE  l  @  @  @<    4 I,PaulaR.Voss,amemberoftheBaroftheSupremeCourtoftheUnitedStatesandcounselofrecordforamicuscuriaeTennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyers,herebycertifythatonthe___dayofJuly,2000,IservedacopyoftheforegoingBriefofAmicusCuriaefortheTennesseeAssociationofCriminalDefenseLawyersonMichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneralofTennessee,andW.MarkWard,counselforthePetitioner,bydepositingthesameintheUnitedStatesPostOffice,Knoxville,Tennessee,withfirstclasspostageprepaid,properlyaddressedto:MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,CriminalJusticeDivision,CordellHullBuilding,2ndFloor,4255thAvenueNorth,Nashville,Tennessee372430493,andW.MarkWard,201PoplarAvenue,Room201,Memphis,Tennessee,38103,theirpostofficeaddresses. +%-  4 Allpartiesrequiredtobeservedhavebeenserved.@* 4    <      4    <     PaulaR.Voss,CounselforPetitioner 4    <     1209EuclidAvenue 4    <     Knoxville,TN37921 4    <     Telephone:(865)5946120#XXXX#_