State v. Arpin

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that, in the past, the Court “has chosen to apply new rules of law in the manner best suited to serve the interests of justice and to avoid hardship”
• explaining that, in the past, the Court “has chosen to apply new rules of law in the manner best suited to serve the interests of justice and to avoid hardship”
• ALI Model Penal Code insanity test adopted in Johnson II applies prospectively because of reliance placed by all parties on former M'Naghten rule
• “[i]t is well settled that the highest court of a state may choose to apply new rules of law in any manner it deems appropriate and just”
• erroneously raising the state’s burden of proof from clear and convincing to beyond a reasonable doubt in determining whether the jury can consider the defendant’s inculpatory statements did not prejudice the defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).