State of Connecticut v. Russell Peeler.

Summary

This dissent argues that the court should overrule its recent constitutional precedent invalidating capital punishment for offenders who committed capital felonies before its prospective abolition. It proposes a four-step horizontal stare decisis framework: determine whether the precedent is wrong, assess reliance interests, assess the costs of preserving the error, and weigh those interests and costs. The dissent concludes that the precedent generated virtually no reliance and imposed substantial uncertainty, constitutional-order costs, and error-correction costs. Justices Espinosa, Rogers, and Robinson separately dissent or concur in disagreement over whether stare decisis requires preserving the precedent, while Justice Palmer, joined by Justices Eveleigh and McDonald, concurs in preserving it.