Page:Aka v. Jefferson Hospital Association, Inc.pdf/23

Rh   prejudice occurred in view of the jury's verdict. Consequently, we affirm the trial court's decision to admit Nurse Parker's testimony.

The case is remanded to the trial court for further action consistent with this opinion.

B and T, JJ., dissent in part and concur in part.

I, J., concurs. 

 C I, Justice, concurring. I concur with the result reached by the majority in this matter. However, I do not agree with the analysis in Part I of the majority opinion.

The majority correctly suggests that consistency should be the benchmark when this court deals with legislative intent; however, the opinion falls short of its goal in its misplaced reliance on the amended definition of person in the homicide statutes at Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102 (Supp. 1999). This statute provides no basis for a retroactive application of a broadened defmition of personhood to the instant case.

Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-1-102 was passed as Act 1273 of 1999, three years after the events preceding the death of Baby Boy Aka. Legislative enactments are typically deemed to be prospective in application barring an express statement of a retroactive effect. ''Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan & Scholarship Bd. v. Luter'', 292 Ark. 259, 729 S.W.2d 402 (1987). Act 1273 contained no such provision enabling retroactive application. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102 (Supp. 1999).

The majority opinion cites Bean v. Office of Child Support Enfcm't, 340 Ark. 286, 9 S.W.3d 520 (2000), for the proposition that the strict rule of construction against retroactive operation of a statute does not necessarily control in the case of a remedial statute, providing that the law does not interfere with vested rights or "create new obligations." Id. at 297.