Rogers v. Tennessee
Citation and Court
532 U.S. 451 (2001) — Supreme Court of the United States
Facts
Rogers stabbed a victim who remained in a coma for over a year before dying. The Tennessee Supreme Court abolished the common law year-and-a-day rule (which barred murder prosecution if the victim did not die within a year and a day of the injury) and applied that abolition retroactively to convict Rogers of murder.
Issue
Whether retroactive judicial abolition of the common law year-and-a-day rule violates the Due Process Clause’s prohibition on unexpected and indefensible interpretations of the law.
Holding
No; retroactive judicial abolition of the year-and-a-day rule does not violate due process. The rule’s abolition was not unexpected or indefensible given modern medicine’s changed circumstances and the widespread rejection of the rule.
Rule / Doctrine
The Due Process Clause restricts courts from making unexpected, retroactive changes to criminal law that are indefensible in light of prior law. However, courts may prospectively and retroactively change outdated common law rules when the change is foreseeable and supported by changed circumstances. The Ex post facto Clause applies only to legislatures, not to courts, but due process provides a related limitation on retroactive judicial lawmaking.
Significance
An important case at the intersection of due process, common law evolution, and ex post facto principles. Clarifies that courts have some retroactive law-making power in criminal contexts, subject to the due process requirement of reasonable foreseeability.