Pirnat v. State, No. 82S01-9210-CR-837

Docket NºNo. 82S01-9210-CR-837
Citation607 N.E.2d 973
Case DateFebruary 02, 1993
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

Page 973

607 N.E.2d 973
Steven W. PIRNAT, Appellant (Defendant Below),
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 82S01-9210-CR-837.
Supreme Court of Indiana.
Feb. 2, 1993.

David M. Shaw, Evansville, for appellant.

Pamela Carter, Atty. Gen., Sue A. Bradley, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

The State has petitioned for rehearing after our granting of appellant's petition to transfer in Pirnat v. State (1992), Ind., 600 N.E.2d 1342. We write today to clarify our brief opinion in that case.

Pirnat was decided on the same day as Lannan v. State (1992), 600 N.E.2d 1334. In Lannan, we revisited the depraved sexual instinct exception and announced a new rule concerning the admissibility of prior bad acts in sex offense cases. Pirnat's petition raised a similar challenge to the use of depraved sexual instinct evidence. In accepting Pirnat's transfer petition, we wrote: "Inasmuch as Pirnat's appeal is currently pending as this new rule is announced, the rule of Lannan should be applied to his case." Pirnat, 600 N.E.2d at 1342 (emphasis added). We remanded to the Court of Appeals for reexamination of Pirnat's appeal in light of our holding in Lannan.

The State's petition for rehearing raises several arguments about the merits of Pirnat's appeal which can be addressed to the Court of Appeals on remand. The main thrust of the petition, however, that application of the rule of Lannan "will have a devastating effect on the administration of justice," 1 appears to be based on an assumption by the State that Lannan will be applied retroactively to cases on collateral review, i.e., petitions for post-conviction relief, thereby resurrecting perhaps thousands of child molesting cases long since

Page 974

prosecuted and affirmed. We are not inclined to agree.

Pirnat and others whose cases properly preserved the issue and whose cases were pending on direct appeal at the time Lannan was decided receive the benefit of review under the new rule for the basic reason that they ought not be penalized merely because we chose another pending case as the vehicle for announcing the change of an evidentiary rule. We doubt Lannan will qualify for retroactive application to cases on collateral review, 2 but reserve that question for another day.

Petition for rehearing is denied.

All Justices concur.

---------------

1 Appellee's Brief at 4.

2 See Daniels v. State (1990), Ind., 561 N.E.2d 487, 488; Teague...

To continue reading

Request your trial
26 practice notes
  • Membres v. State, No. 49S02-0701-CR-33.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 27, 2008
    ...in the trial court. Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 688-689 (Ind.2005); Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind. 2003); Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind.1993). Today the Court announces an exception to that retroactivity rule for cases involving warrantless searches of trash that ......
  • Kendall v. State, No. 49A05-0707-PC-391.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 9, 2008
    ...that to receive the benefit of a new rule of law, a claimant must preserve the issue for appeal. Id. at 688 (citing Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind.1993)). In explaining how an issue is typically preserved, the Smylie court referred to Coleman v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind.1990),......
  • Smylie v. State, No. 41S01-0409-CR-408.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 9, 2005
    ...waiver and forfeiture.13 To receive the benefit of a new rule of law, a claimant must preserve the issue for appeal. In Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973 (Ind.1993), for example, we considered the retroactive applicability of our decision about the admissibility of "depraved sexual instinct" ......
  • Belvedere v. State, No. 48A05-0611-CR-669.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 23, 2007
    ...issue was "properly preserved ... [and the case was] pending on direct appeal" at the time the new rule was announced. Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind.1993). In so holding, our Supreme Court determined that those defendants 875 N.E.2d 357 should "receive the benefit of review unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
26 cases
  • Membres v. State, No. 49S02-0701-CR-33.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • June 27, 2008
    ...in the trial court. Smylie v. State, 823 N.E.2d 679, 688-689 (Ind.2005); Ludy v. State, 784 N.E.2d 459, 462 (Ind. 2003); Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind.1993). Today the Court announces an exception to that retroactivity rule for cases involving warrantless searches of trash that ......
  • Kendall v. State, No. 49A05-0707-PC-391.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 9, 2008
    ...that to receive the benefit of a new rule of law, a claimant must preserve the issue for appeal. Id. at 688 (citing Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind.1993)). In explaining how an issue is typically preserved, the Smylie court referred to Coleman v. State, 558 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind.1990),......
  • Smylie v. State, No. 41S01-0409-CR-408.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • March 9, 2005
    ...waiver and forfeiture.13 To receive the benefit of a new rule of law, a claimant must preserve the issue for appeal. In Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973 (Ind.1993), for example, we considered the retroactive applicability of our decision about the admissibility of "depraved sexual instinct" ......
  • Belvedere v. State, No. 48A05-0611-CR-669.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 23, 2007
    ...issue was "properly preserved ... [and the case was] pending on direct appeal" at the time the new rule was announced. Pirnat v. State, 607 N.E.2d 973, 974 (Ind.1993). In so holding, our Supreme Court determined that those defendants 875 N.E.2d 357 should "receive the benefit of review unde......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT