State of Connecticut v. Russell Peeler. — Espinosa, J., Dissenting

Summary

Justice Espinosa dissents from the court's refusal to overrule the recent constitutional decision invalidating Connecticut's death penalty for offenders who committed capital crimes before its prospective abolition. She argues that stare decisis requires correction of a recent decision that was clearly wrong and itself departed from established precedent, and that a change in the court's membership cannot shield such a decision from reconsideration. Justice Zarella, dissenting, likewise would apply an objective stare decisis framework and overrule the precedent; Chief Justice Rogers and Justices Robinson, Palmer, Eveleigh, and McDonald, concurring, would preserve it for institutional-legitimacy and stability reasons.