In the case of Hankerson v. North Carolina (1976), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot use an unconstitutional law to convict someone, even if it was considered constitutional at the time of conviction. The case involved Alonzo Hankerson who had been convicted under a North Carolina law which presumed malice from intent to kill in second-degree murder cases - effectively shifting burden of proof onto defendants and violating their right to due process as per previous ruling in Mullaney v. Wilbur (1975). The court held that this decision should be applied retroactively, thus overturning Hankerson's conviction because he was tried under instructions later deemed unconstitutional by Mullaney v. Wilbur precedent.

In the dissenting opinion for Hankerson v. North Carolina, Justice White disagreed with the majority's decision to apply retroactively a rule established in Mullaney v. Wilbur that required states to prove beyond reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute a crime charged against an individual. He argued that this ruling would have significant implications on state criminal procedures and could potentially result in numerous retrials or dismissals of convictions obtained under previous law, causing substantial disruption within the justice system. Furthermore, he contended that there was no compelling reason given by the court as to why such drastic measures were necessary or justified; thus, he believed it should be left up to each state's discretion whether they wanted to adopt these new standards retrospectively or not.