Court Opinion

ID: 9512051
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:10:52.928553+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:16.824415
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON,
specially concurring.
¶75 I concur in the Court’s decision with the following caveat. As to Issue 1, I agree that Jackson waived the argument which he now makes on appeal for the first time. Opinion, ¶¶ 41,43.1 also agree that we should not address his argument under plain error review. Opinion, ¶ 42. However, I do not agree with or concur in the Court’s plain error review which follows in ¶¶ 43-47. It makes absolutely no sense that we decline to review error under the plain error doctrine in one breath and then proceed to address and resolve the merits of the claimed error in the next. In doing so, we actually do the plain error review that we say we are not going to do. Having declined plain error review, that should end the matter without further discussion of the merits of the claim of error at issue.