Opinion ID: 1265150
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Majority Decision Completely Disregards Stare Decisis

Text: In syllabus point 2 of Dailey v. Bechtel Corp., 157 W.Va. 1023, 207 S.E.2d 169 (1974), this Court held: An appellate court should not overrule a previous decision recently rendered without evidence of changing conditions or serious judicial error in interpretation sufficient to compel deviation from the basic policy of the doctrine of stare decisis, which is to promote certainty, stability, and uniformity in the law. See also Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. Rys. Comm'n, 502 U.S. 197, 202, 112 S.Ct. 560, 563, 116 L.Ed.2d 560 (1991) ([W]e will not depart from the doctrine of stare decisis without some compelling justification.) (citation omitted). It has been aptly noted that [c]asting aside well-settled law for no reason other than to substitute judge-made law is particularly reprehensible in the area of criminal law where clarity and fairness are overriding concerns. State v. Anderson, 212 W.Va. 761, 767, 575 S.E.2d 371, 377 (2002) (Albright, J., concurring). The majority decision to overrule Nichols is reprehensible. Moreover, [t]he author of the majority opinion has, in effect, `stood stare decisis on its ear.' A & M Props., Inc. v. Norfolk S. Corp., 203 W.Va. 189, 197, 506 S.E.2d 632, 640 (1998) (Starcher, J., dissenting). As a general rule, the principle of stare decisis directs us to adhere ... to the holdings of our prior cases[.] County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, Greater Pittsburgh Chapter, 492 U.S. 573, 668, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 3141, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989) (Kennedy, J., concurring and dissenting). See also Banker v. Banker, 196 W.Va. 535, 546 n. 13, 474 S.E.2d 465, 476 n. 13 (1996) (Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent.). Stare decisis rests upon the important principle that the law by which people are governed should be `fixed, definite, and known,' and not subject to frequent modification in the absence of compelling reasons. Bradshaw v. Soulsby, 210 W.Va. 682, 690, 558 S.E.2d 681, 689 (2001) (Maynard, J., dissenting), quoting Booth v. Sims, 193 W.Va. 323, 350 n. 14, 456 S.E.2d 167, 194 n. 14 (1995). No compelling reason existed to overrule Nichols. The majority opinion did not provide any legitimate justification for ignoring stare decisis and overturning Nichols. As I have pointed out, Nichols imposed no prejudice on a defendant by requiring the defendant to present credible evidence to the trial court before precious judicial resources were expended in a separate trial to determine if a defendant was, in fact, the same person named in a prior conviction. For the reasons given, I concur in part and dissent in part. I am authorized to state the Justice MAYNARD joins me in this separate opinion.