State v. Kalil

Summary

The dissent agrees that the trial court properly admitted the challenged testimony but disagrees with the majority's refusal to apply the amelioration doctrine retroactively. It would hold that the amendment increasing the property-value threshold for second-degree larceny applies to the defendant because it mitigated the consequences of his conduct, did not expressly provide for prospective application, and was not barred by the general savings statutes. The dissent would affirm the conviction, reverse the sentencing judgment, and remand for resentencing.