I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 1 0 - CT - 0 1 1 6 9 - S CT HERBERT

C. HANSON, J

R.
v. J OH N G R E GOR Y

DI S OT EL L , J & J I N VESTM

EN TS, LLC

, W EST H AR RISON

FA RM S, L L C, HAR RI

S ON C OUNT Y C ODE ADM I NI S TRA TION AND BEN G. CLA RK

ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 06/ 29/ 2010 TRI AL J UD GE: HO N. J OH N C
. GA RG I ULO COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: HARRI S ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L ANT : F L OYD J
. L OGAN AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E S : T I M C. HOL L E M AN NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - CONTRACT D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 01/ 31/ 2013 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC
. DI CK I NSON, PRES I DI NG J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. A f

t erthe tr i al j udge gr ant ed t he def endant s summ ary j udgm ent , t hi s C our tr ever s ed and r emanded f

ortr i al
. M or e than f

ouryear s l at er , the tr i al j udge – f i ndi ng the pl ai nt i f

f had fail ed to p rose cu te his claim – en tered a fi n al j u d g m en t as t o all d efe n d an ts. B ec au se w e a re
u n a b l e t o s a y th e tr i a l j u d g e a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n , we a f f i r m.

### 2 B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2 . A f

t erO PM
- U SA l eas ed pr op e r ty f r om H e rbe r tC. H a ns on t o c on s truc ta cel l ul ar t ow er , H arr i s on C ount y B ui l di ng C ode A dm i nis t rat or B en C l ark – f i ndi ng the pr opos ed tow er d id n o t m ee t safety re g u lat ion s b ec au se it s h eigh t w as larg er tha n the p rop erty’s bor der s –d e ni e d O PM
- U SA a c on s truc t i on - s i t e p e r mi t . O PM
- U SA the n e nt e r e d i nt o a c o n tra c t w ith H a n s o n ' s n e ig h b o r, W e st H a rriso n F a rm s, L L C , to c o n stru c t th e to w e r o n its pr operty. H ans on s ued O PM
- U SA f orbr eac h of

contr act , and the part i es s ett l ed. ¶ 3 . H an so n then am en d ed h is co m p lai n t t o in c lu d e a s a d d iti o n a l d e fen d an ts: Jo h n G reg o ry D iso tell, W e st H a rriso n F a rm s, J & J In v e stm e n ts, L L C , C lar k , a n d H a rr iso n C o u n ty ( col l ect i vel y r ef

err ed t o as “A ppel l ees ”)
. H ans on al l eged thatC l ark and D i s ot el l – w ho act ed thro u g h J & J Inv estm en ts an d w ere hired by W est H arrison F arm s – co n sp ir ed t o interfere
w i th hi s l eas e and ha ve hi s perm i tr ej ect ed. ¶4. A f

t er H arr i s on C ount y f

i l ed a m ot i on f

or s um m ary j udgm ent , the tr i al court t ook t he
m ot i on underadvi s ementand al l ow ed di s covery t o pr ocee d. Fr om 1999 t o 2002, the part i es too k d ep o sit ion s o f all p arti es a n d w itn esse s, inclu d ing B en C lark (w h o d ied in 2 0 0 4 ). H ans on f i l ed a mot i on f

ora tr i al s ett i ng but , i nst ead of s ett i ng the mat t erf

ortr i al , the tr i al j udge gr ant ed the def

endant s s um m ary j udgm ent . O n J ul y 21, 2005, t hi s C our tr ever s ed and
r emanded the ca s e f

ortr i al
. A f

t erthe r emand, nothi ng w as f i l ed i n the r ecor d unt i l J une 30, 2 0 0 9 , w h e n H a rriso n C o u n ty m o v e d to su b stitu te c o u n se l. ¶5 . O n S e p tem b e r 1 , 2 0 0 9 , H an so n sen t a let ter to co u n sel f o r th e d e fe n d a n ts w ith pot ent i al tr i al dat es . H arr i s on C ount y r es ponded that , due t o the new boar d att orney’ s havi ng t aken ove rt hatposi t i on i n Jul y 2009, H arr i s on C ounty w oul d need mor e t i m e t o pr epar e f orHan so n v . D iso tel l, 2 01 1 WL 5 37 36 63 , * 1-2 (Mi ss. Ct . App . N ov . 8 , 2 01 1). 1 Mis s. R. Civ. P. 41 (b)
. 2 Wa tso n v

. L ill ard, 4 93 So . 2 d 1 27 7, 12 78 (Mi ss. 19 86 ). 3 

### 3 tr i al
. H ans on then f

i l ed a mot i on t o s etthe ca s e f or t ri al , an d H arr i s on C ounty, C l ark, D i s ot el l , and J & J I nves t m ent s f i l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s f orl ack of

pr os ecut i on. ¶6. Fol l ow i ng a hea r i ng, the tr i al cour tgr ant ed the mot i on t o di s m i s s , s t at i ng that H ans on had f ai l ed t o p r os ecut e the ca s e ort ake a ny act i on of r ecor d f r om 2005 t o 2009. T he tr i al
c o u rt fu rth e r fo u n d th a t th e im p o sitio n o f le ss e r sa n c tio n s w o u ld n o t se rv e th e b e st in ter e sts of j us t i ce. ¶ 7 . T h e n , W e st H a rriso n F a rm s filed its m o tio n to d ism iss , a n d H a n so n filed a m o tio n to
r ei ns t at e the ca s e f

ortr i al
. T he tr i al courtdeni ed H ans on’ s m oti on an d gra nt ed a f i nal j udgm entof

di s m i s s al f

oral l the def

endant s . A ggr i eved, H ans on appea l ed. T he C our tof A p p e a ls a ffirm e d , a n d w e g ra n ted H a n so n p e tit io n fo r a w rit o f c e rtio ra ri. 1 A N A L Y S IS ¶8. T he tr i al court di s m i s s ed H anson’s com pl ai nt under author i ty of R ul e 41( b) , w hi ch
s t at es i n r el evantpartthat , “[ f ] orf ai l ur e of the pl ai nt i f

f t o pr os ecut e . . , a def

endantm ay
m o v e fo r d ism iss a l o f a n a c tio n o r o f a n y c laim a g a in st h im .” O u r p re c e d e n t cle a rly 2 provides tri al j ud ges t he “inherentauthori ty to di sm i ss cas es f or f ai l ure t o p rosecut e as a
m e a n s o f c o n tr o llin g th e c o u rt ’s d o c k e t a n d e n s u ri n g [e x p e d itio u s ] ju s tic e .” 3Collins v. Koppers, Inc., 59 So. 3d 582, 589 (Miss. 2011) (ci ting Wa lla ce v . J on es , 572 So. 4 2d 37 1, 37 5 (M iss . 1 99 0)) ; Cox v. Cox , 9 76 So . 2 d 8 69 , 8 74 (Mi ss. 20 08 ). Holder v. Orange Grove Med. Spec ialties, P.A. , 54 So. 3d 192, 198 (Miss. 2010) (ci tations 5 omitt ed). Id. (quoting Wa lla ce , 5 72 So . 2 d at 37 7). 6 

### 4 ¶ 9 . W e d o n o t re v e rse tria l ju d g e s w h o g ra n t R u le 4 1 (b ) d ism iss a ls u n les s w e fin d th a t, i n s o doi ng, they abus ed t heird i scr et i on. A nd thi s C our thas hel d thatei therdel ay or 4
c o n tu m a c io u s c o n d u c t p ro v id e s a su ffic ien t b a sis fo r a tria l ju d g e to d ism iss p u rsu a n t to R u le 41 (b) , provided thatthe tr i al j ud ge fi nd s that a l essersan cti o n w ou l d n ot s erve the b est interests of justi ce . L esse r sa n cti o n s m ay inc lud e “‘fines , co sts, o r da m ag es a g ains t plainti ff 5
orhi s coun sel , att orney di s ci pl i nary m eas ur es , condi t i onal di s m i s s al , di s m i s s al w i thout p rejud ice, an d ex p li citw arn ing s. ’” 6 ¶ 1 0 . T h e p a rties p re se n ted the tri a l j u d g e w ith arg u m e n ts a n d fa c ts th a t s u p p o rte d th e ir
r es pect i ve posi t i ons . T he def endant s poi nt ed outt hatel even yea r s had pas s ed s i nce the f i l i ng of the compl ai nt , a nd – f

r om J ul y 2005, w hen thi s C our ti s s ued i t s m andat e r emandi ng t he
cas e, unt i l O ct ober2009, w hen H ans on fi l ed a mot i on t o s etthe tr i al – the pl ai nt i f f had f i l ed nothi ng of

r ecor d. D ef

endants als o po i nt ed outthatone of the part i es – B en C l ark – had di ed, and ce r t ai n w i tnes s es had r el ocat ed. ¶11. H ans on bl amed the del ay on “H urr i cane K atr i na, the r et i r ement and r eas s i gnm entof ju d g e s, c h a n g e s o f c o u n se l re p re se n tin g D e fe n d a n t, H a rriso n C o u n ty , an d D e fe n d a n t, H a rriso n C o u n ty ’s c o u n se l’s re fu sa l to a g re e to a trial d a te.” H a n so n a lso p o in ted o u t th a t,
a lth o u g h B e n C lar k h a d ind e e d p a ss e d aw a y d u rin g the d e lay , h is d e p o sitio n w a s a v a ilab le fo r tria l.Hol der , 54 So. 3d at 196. 7 Se e In re: Emergency Proc edures Related t o Hurricane Katrina’s Disr uption of Judicial 8 Process es , No . 2 00 5-AD- 00 00 1 (S ep t. 6 , 2 00 5). 

### 5 ¶12. T he t r i al court f

ound that the pl ai nt i f

f’ s f ai l ur e t o t ake any act i on of r ecor d f orf our y e a rs, c o u p led w ith th e fa c t th a t H a n so n filed h is m o tio n fo r a tria l d a te o n ly in re a c tio n to th e d e fe n d a n ts ’ m o tio n to s u b s titu te c o u n s e l, e x h ib ite d a “ re c o rd o f d ila to ri n e s s a n d d e la y .” ¶13 . W e f

i nd that a r easona ble tri al j ud ge very w el l m i gh thave d en ied th e d efe n d an t s’
mo t i o n t o d i s mi s s . Bu ta s a n a p p e l l a t e c o u r ta p p l y i n g a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n s t a n d a r d , we cannotr ever s e on thatbas i s . I ns t ead, w e mustaf f i r m the tr i al j udge unl es s w e f i nd he 7 ab u se d h is d iscreti o n . A n d the fa cts p rese n ted h ere are far m o re tha n su ffi cien t t o su p p o rt the tr i al j udge’ s deci s i on. ¶14. H ans on’ s ar gum ent , and hi s r eas ons f or the del ay, w er e cons i derat i on s f or the tr i al
court . A l s o, thi s C our tent er ed an or derof r el i ef f oratt orneys and l i t i gant s af f ect ed by H urr i cane K atr i na. H ans on ne vera s s ert ed any s peci al ci r cumst ance s ( r egar di ng H urr i cane 8 K atri n a) e n ti tl ing h im to reli ef b ey o n d that w h ich w e g ran ted in o u r ord er. CO NC L US I ON ¶15. B eca us e w e ar e unabl e t o f i nd that the tr i al court abus ed i t s di s cr et i on by di s m i s s i ng th i s c a s e wh e n th e p l a i n t i f f f a i l e d t o f i l e a n y th i n g o f

r e c o r d f o rmo r e th a n f

o u ry e a r s , we aff i rm the judgm ents of the H arr i son C ou nty C i rcui tC ou rtand the C ou rtof A pp eal s. ¶ 1 6 . AF F I RM ED . RANDOL P H, P . J . , LA M AR, CHANDL ER AND COLEM AN, J J . , CONCUR. KI TC HENS , J . , DI S S EN TS W I TH S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON J OI NE D BY W AL LE R, C. J . , AND KI NG, J . P I ER CE , J . , NOT P ART I CI P AT I NG
.

### 6

KI T CH E NS , J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 1 7 . A t iss u e is th e fo u r-y e a r p e rio d fr o m J u ly 2 0 0 5 , w h e n th is C o u rt iss u e d its m a n d a te
r emandi ng the ca s e, unt i l O ct ober2009, w hen H anson fi l ed a mot i on t o s etthe tr i al
. T he
m a jo rity h o ld s th a t th e trial c o u rt d id n o t ab u se its d isc re tio n b y d ism iss in g th e c a se w ith p re ju d ice fo r fa ilu re to p ro se c u te b e c a u se th e re w a s n o a c tio n o f re c o rd b y th e p lain tiff in fo u r y e a rs a n d b e c a u se H a n so n ’s m o tio n to se t th e c a se fo r tria l w a s filed a s a “ re a c tio n ” to the def endant s ’ m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e couns el
. B eca us e thes e ar e notl egal l y s uf f i ci ent ju stific a tio n s fo r a n in v o lu n tar y d ism iss a l u n d e r R u le 4 1 (b ), I re sp e c tfu lly d iss e n t. ¶ 1 8 . D ism iss a l fo r fa ilu re to p ro se c u te is a “ p e n a lty fo r d ilato rin e ss .” M .R .C .P . 4 1 (b ) c m t. I t“i s ‘ r es erved f

ort he m ostegr egi ous cas es , ’ due t o the ‘ extr eme and har s h s anct i on t hat depr i ves a l i t i gantof

the oppor tuni ty t o pur s ue hi s cl ai m . ’ ” Jacks on P ub. Sch. D is t . v. Head
e x re l. R u ss e ll , 67 So. 3d 761, 765 ( M i s s . 2011) ( quot i ng H ill m a n v. W

e a th e rly , 14 So. 3d 721, 726 ( M i s s . 2009) )
. T o a f f i r m a Rul e 41( b) di s m i s s al on appea l “[ i ] tm us tbe cl earf r om the r ecor d thatthe del ay w as the r es ul tof the pl ai nt i f

f ' s f ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e the cl ai m , r ather than extr i ns i c f

act or s beyond the contr ol of the pl ai nt i f

f
. ” B ar r y v. R eev es , 47 So. 3d 689, 694 ( M i s s . 2010)
. T ypi cal l y, d i sm i ss al s f orw antof

pr os ecut i on “ar e af

f i r m ed onl y w hen ther e i s a cl earr ecor d of

del ay orcontum aci ous conductenhance d by atl eas tone aggr avat i ng f act or , and l es s ers anct i ons w oul d be i nef f ect i ve. ” J

a c kso n P u b . S c h . D ist. , 67 So. 3d at765 ( ci t i ng AT& T v. D ay s I nn of W inona , 720 So. 2d 178, 181 ( M i s s . 1998) )
. A ggr avat i ng f act or s i ncl ud e “the ext entt o w hi ch the pl ai nt i f f , as di s t i ngui s hed f

r om hi s couns el , w as per s onal l y r es pons i bl e f orthe del ay, the degr ee of actual pr ej udice t o the def endant , and

### 7

w hetherthe del ay w as the r es ul tof i nt ent i onal conduct
. ” A T&T, 720 So. 2d at181 ( quot i ng R ogers v. K

r ogerCo. , 6 6 9 F . 2 d 3 1 7 , 3 2 0 (5th C ir
. 1 9 8 2 )). ¶19. I n the pr es entcas e, the r ecor d does notr ef l ectany cl ear , i nt ent i onal , di l at ory conduct by the pl ai nt i f

f orhi s att orney. Justaft erthi s C our t ’ s m andat e i s s ued i n thi s cas e i n 2005, Hu rr i c a n e Ka tr i n a s tru c k th e M i s s i s s i p p i Gu l f Co a s t , wh i c h i n c l u d e s Ha rr i s o n Co u n ty . No p ro c e e d in g s to o k p la c e in H a rriso n C o u n ty C irc u it C o u rt u n til 2 0 0 6 . T h e m a jo rity fa u lts H a n so n fo r n o t a v a ili n g h im se lf o f th is C o u rt’s E m e rg e n c y A d m in istra tiv e O rd e r iss u e d in S e p tem b e r 2 0 0 5 , b u t d o e s n o t ex p lain h o w th is o rd e r w o u ld h a v e h e lp e d H a n so n b rin g h is
c a s e to tr ia l. I

n re E m er

gency Proc edur es R el

ated to Hurr i cane K

atr ina’s D is r upti on of Ju di cial P r oces s es , Cas e N o. 20 05
- A D
- 00 01 ( O r de rSe pt . 6, 20 05 )
. The or de ra utho r i zed tri al cou rt s t o ex t end deadli nes and reschedu l e heari ng s and tri al s, but atthat t i m e, the case
o n ly re c e n tly h a d b e e n re m a n d e d to th e tr ia l c o u rt . ¶20. I n f

act , the r ecor d r ef

l ect s that H ans on att empt ed t o br i ng the cas e t o tr i al but thatt he def endant s w er e unr es pons i ve. T he r ecor d i ncl udes a l ett erf r om H ans on’ s l aw yer , dat ed A u g u st 1 6 , 2 0 0 7 , in w h ich th e a tto rn e y fo r th e p lain tiff sta ted th a t h e h a d b e e n u n a b le to
re a c h th e o p p o sin g p a rties ’ a tto rn e y s re g a rd in g a tria l d a te a n d p ro p o se d to th e m a trial d a te of e i therJ anuary 22 orJ anuary 28, 2008. N o r es pons e f r om oppos i ng couns el i s cont ai ned i n the r ecor d. O n Sept ember1, 2009, H ans on’ s l aw yeragai n cont act ed couns el f orthe def endant s w i th pot ent i al tr i al dat es and as ked fori nputaboutthe part i es ’ avai l abi l i ty. H a rriso n C o u n ty ’s a tto rn e y re sp o n d e d th a t h e “ a p p re c iate [d ] [ H a n so n ’s] d e sire to g e t th is
m a tter r e so lv e d q u ick ly ,” b u t d u e to h is h a v in g re c e n tly tak e n o v e r th a t p o sitio n , h e w o u ld

### 8

n e e d m o re tim e to p re p a re fo r tria l. T h e le tter f u rth e r su g g e ste d a p o ten tial tria l se tti n g in O ctob er o r N o v em b er 2 0 1 0 – m o re tha n a y ea r after H an so n ’s S ep tem b er 1 , 2 0 0 9 , let ter. ¶21. H avi ng f

ai l ed i n hi s att empt s t o obt ai n a m utual l y agr eea bl e tr i al dat e, H ans on f i l ed
a m o ti o n to set the ca se fo r tri al on O ctob er 2 , 2 0 0 9 . T h e m ajority , ag ree ing w ith the C o u rt of A ppeal s and the tri al co urt , i nexpl i cabl y f i nds thi s m ot i on a mer e r eac t i on t o H arr i s on C ounty’ s m ot i on t o s ubs t i tut e couns el , r atherthan a ge nui ne ef f or tt o pr ocee d w i th the ca s e. A m o tio n to s e t th e c a se fo r tria l m a y s u p p o rt a fin d in g o f c lea r d e lay b y th e p lain tiff if itis f i l ed i n r es pons e t o a m oti on t o d ism iss . H il l m an , 14 So. 3d at727 ( ci t i ng H il l v. R am s ey , 3 So. 3d 120, 122 ( M i s s . 2009) )
. I n the co ntexto f t hi s cas e, I f ai l t o s ee how H arr i s on C ounty’ s mot i on t o s ubs t i tut e couns el w oul d i ndi cat e an a t t empt t o have the ca s e di s m i s s ed fo r f a ilu re to p ro s e c u te . ¶22. G i ven the s equence of even t s and H ans on’ s ef f or t s t o comm uni cat e w i th oppos i ng co u n sel, the re co rd d o es n o t sup p o rta fi n d ing th at H an so n ’s m o ti o n to se t tri al w as a m ere
r eac t i on t o a cha nge i n r epr es ent at i on of on e o f t he def

endant s . H ow ever , the r ecor d does
s uppor ta f

i ndi ng of r eact i onar y conduct , notby H ans on, butby the def endant s . A s J udge R us s el l a s tut el y not ed i n he rdi s s ent , “ i tw as onl y af t erH ans on’ s couns el att empt ed t o m ove forw ar d w i th a tr i al by f i l i ng hi s mot i on t o s ettr i al thatde f ens e couns el r eac t ed by f i l i ng a
m ot i on t o di s m i s s f

orl ack of pr os ecut i on. ” H

a n so n v. D iso tell , 20 11 W L 53 73 66 3, *7 (M i ss. C t. A p p . N o v . 8 , 2 0 1 1 ) (R u ss e ll, J ., d iss e n tin g ). W h ile H a n so n m a d e e ffo rts to p ro c e e d in th e lit ig a tio n , the re c o rd d e m o n stra tes th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts m a d e a ttem p ts to a v o id a trial. ¶23. O therthan a pe r i od of i nact i vi ty (i n t he af

t erm ath of

a hurr i cane thatw as di s rupt i ve i n the extr eme) and the s o- cal l ed r eac t i onary m ot i on t o s etthe ca s e f ortr i al , the maj or i ty ci t es

### 9

n o rea so n s tha t w o u ld su p p o rto u r affirm ing a d ism issal for fa il u re to p rose cu te. M o reo v er, th e re is n o fin d in g th a t th e p a ss a g e o f tim e p re ju d ice d th e d e fe n d a n ts. T h e m a jo rity
r ef er ence s the dea th of

B en C l ark, butdoe s notmake a f i ndi ng thathi s de ath w as pr ej udi ci al t o the def endant s . I n f

act , C l ark’ s deposi t i on had been t aken i n ant i ci pat i on of hi s i m m i nent death, and hi s e s t at e had been s ubs t i tut ed i n hi s pl ace bef or e the ca s e r eac hed thi s C our ton interl o cu tory ap p ea l. A s for c ertain w itn esse s h av ing reloc ated , there is no thing in the rec o rd t o s uppor tthi s as s ert i on by t he def endant s , or , even i f

true, thatthi s pos ed a pr obl em forthe d e fe n d a n ts . ¶24. Fi nal l y, the onl y evi dence t o i ndi cat e the tr i al j ud ge ’ s cons i der at i on of l es s er s anct i ons is a p e rfu n c to ry re m a rk in h is w ritte n o rd e r th a t “n o les se r sa n c tio n s w o u ld su ffic e ,” w ith
no r ef er ence t o w hatl es s ers anct i ons , i f a ny, he c ons i der ed. W hen the tr i al j udge announc ed his decis i on atthe h eari ng o n the m oti on to dis m i ss, h e m ade no m enti on of l essersanct i on s. N othi ng i n the r ecor d s ugges t s thatthe tr i al c our tc ons i der ed any s anct i on otherthan the one
r eques t ed by the def

endant s – di s m i s s al – a puni s hm ent“r es erved f orthe mostegr egi ous cas es . ” H

il l m an , 14 So. 3d at726. Fr om t he t ot al i ty of the ci r cumst ance s appea r i ng i n t he
re c o rd , itis n o t ap p a re n t th a t th e trial c o u rt sh o u ld h a v e d o n e a n y th in g o th e r th a n p ro c e e d to
a tr ia l o n th e m e ri ts . ¶25. A l though a tr i al courtm ay exe r ci s e i t s di s cr et i on i n gr ant i ng m ot i ons t o di s m i s s f or f ai l ur e t o pr os ecut e, thatdi s cr et i on is n otunf ett er ed. W e r equi r e more than a pe r i od of i nact i vi ty on t he docke tbef or e a Rul e 41( b) di s m i s s al i s a ppr opr i at e, f orthe l aw f

avor s tr i al
o f i s s u e s o n th e m e ri ts . A T&T, 720 So. 2d at181. I n the pr es entcas e, ther e w as no cl ear recor d of

di l at ory c onductby H ans on ora ny c i r cumst ance s thatw oul d w arr antthi s m ost

### 10

extr eme sa nct i on. W i thoutthe pr operl egal j us t i f i cat i on, the tr i al courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng the c ase . B ec au se I w o u ld rev erse the d ism issal f o r fail u re to p rose cu te, I res p e c tfu lly d iss e n t. W AL LE R, C. J . , AND KI NG, J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.