*1 1072 Murphy Kentucky; and
No. 83-5352. v. Kentucky. Phillips Certio Ct. Sup. Ky. No. 83-5662. v. 69; 2d 83-5352, 652 S. W. No. below: Reported rari denied. 6. 2d 83-5662, 655 S. W. No. and Justice Brennan whom Justice White, with
Justice dissenting. join, Powell they that ground on the convictions their challenge
Petitioners Post the Ex Facto Clause of of the in violation were obtained § Art. 10. Constitution, I, States United “con- law that a 1980, Kentucky provided 1, to Prior September accomplice unless testimony of an the upon had viction cannot be the to defendant tending connect other evidence by corroborated 9.62. Ky. Crim. Proc. the offense.” Rule the of with commission convic- and thereafter date, repealed, the rule was Effective that upon the be based uncorroborated Kentucky legally in could tions testimony accomplices. of in cases rule, these two unrelated petitioners
After of the repeal repeal. to prior had committed the tried for crimes that been were for rejected request court the defendant’s case, In each the trial on the jury to the effect that the could not convict an instruction Kentucky The accomplice. of testimony uncorroborated an that over the claim Supreme affirmed both convictions Court Post of the new rule violated the Ex Facto Clause. application Commonwealth, Phillips (1983); 2d v. Murphy v. 652 69 S. W. (1983). Commonwealth, 655 2d 6 S. W. not
The
was
Supreme
Kentucky
change
Court of
held that the
The
post facto,
ex
procedure.
because it was
a
in
merely
change
to con-
change
necessary
did not
the
of
decrease
amount
evidence
cer-
vict,
merely
but
to
of
credibility
removed an
the
impediment
In
Commonwealth, supra,
tain
Murphy
witnesses.
v.
at 72.
this
reaching
conclusion,
Kentucky
its
the
relied upon
court
(1884),
up-
in
Hopt Utah,
Court’s decision
which
v.
1073
ex
post
laws. But alterations
upon
tional inhibition
facto
change
ingredi-
the
punishment,
increase the
nor
which do not
*2
or
facts
to
necessary
the offence
the ultimate
establish
ents of
the
the nature of
crime and the
but—leaving untouched
guilt,
conviction—only re-
of
essential to
degree
proof
or
amount
upon the
of certain
competency
restrictions
existing
move
witnesses,
procedure
as
relate to modes of
persons
of
classes
to
a
and
right,
no one can be said
have
vested
in which
only,
public
may regulate
of
State, upon grounds
policy,
the
which
Id.,
at
at 590.
pleasure.”
Ohio,
Thompson
Mis-
(1925);
v.
also Beazell v.
See (1898). souri, S. 380 171 U. Hopt stating to be that Kentucky dispositive,
The court found a procedure change was a which made change simply rule “[t]he competent of without corroboration.” 652 certain class witnesses at 73. 2d, S. W. courts, however, the precisely opposite
Other
have come to
con-
Court of
for the
example,
Appeals
clusion. For
the United States
a
distinguishing Hopt,
Circuit,
Third
has
that
of
stat-
repeal
held
accomplice testimony
ute
corroboration of
“reduces the
requiring
amount of
for conviction” and therefore cannot
proof necessary
Virgin
Government
constitutionally
applied retroactively.
be
of
(1979).
Civil,
Bowyer
Islands
255,
F.
v.
v.
591
2d
259
See also
1980)
(D.
(abolition
States,
Because the evident confusion lower of the Ex Post in of Facto Clause to rules application changes the have procedure—and evidence and some 15 other States because to accomplice-corroboration they may choose requirements that Cert, abolish, 83-5352, 15—we dis- App. p. see to Pet. for in No. I is regard duty Respectfully, our when certiorari denied. dissent. Tex.;
No. App. 83-5799. Russell Texas. Ct. Crim. v. Sup. M.; New N. No. 83-5943. Gilbert Mexico. Ct. v. Tenn.; Sup. No. Ct. 83-6016. Williams Tennessee. v.