Is there any case law where intent to kill was not introduced at trial because of the new law?

Finally, appellant argues remand is inappropriate because there is insufficient evidence in the trial record to prove the enhancement under the new law. He is not correct. Where, as here, evidence is not introduced at trial because the law at that time would have rendered it irrelevant, the remand to prove that element is proper and the reviewing court does not treat the issue as one of sufficiency of the evidence. (See People v. Balderas (1985) 41 Cal.3d 144, 197-199, 222 Cal.Rptr. 184, 711 P.2d 480 [retrial of special circumstances issue in death penalty trial after court decision that intent to kill was required for felony-murder special circumstance].)