Majority excerpt in Toma v. State: The majority held that the rule applies because it regulates the truth-finding procedure used at the pending trial. It explained that the recording requirement changes how reliability is assessed rather than the legal consequences of the past offense. Dissent excerpt: The dissent accepted that future custodial interrogations must be recorded, but held that retroactive application imposes a new exclusionary consequence on completed police conduct. It explained that officers acted under the rules governing interrogations at the time. The competing excerpts address these facts: A newly announced rule required recording custodial interrogations, and a defendant sought to apply it at a trial that was pending when the rule was adopted.