People v. Wilson

I dissent from the majority’s conclusion giving limited retroactive effect to the Fountain decision. As noted by the majority, Michigan and U. S. Courts have traditionally applied a three-factor test to measure the necessity of retroactive application: (1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the degree to which law enforcement agencies relied upon the former rule or standard, and (3) the effect of retroactive application on the administration of justice. People v Hampton, 384 Mich 669, 677; 187 NW2d 404 (1971), Hankerson v North Carolina, 432 US 233; 97 S Ct 2339; 53 L Ed 2d 306…