Court Opinion

ID: 9884640
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:04:39.825482+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:39.995932
License: Public Domain

HARRELL, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the result reached in the Majority opinion and most of the reasoning explaining that result. I depart, however, from its somewhat obscure repudiation of two of this *640Court’s opinions (Ebb v. State, 341 Md. 578, 671 A.2d 974 (1996); and Watkins v. State, 328 Md. 95, 613 A.2d 379 (1992)), apparently in favor of the dissent in Ebb and a Court of Special Appeals’s opinion, Leeks v. State, 110 Md.App. 543, 678 A.2d 80 (1996), authored by Judge Murphy while serving on the intermediate appellate court.
The Majority opinion need not overrule any part of either Ebb or Watkins in order to reach its goal in the present case. Rather, Ebb and Watkins may be distinguished from the case at hand on the basis explained by the Majority opinion at 635-37, 996 A.2d at 879-81. Moreover, when this Court disapproves its earlier precedent, in whole or in part, it should do so on a principled basis transparently explained in the subsequent opinion. I cannot say that the Majority opinion here does so and most certainly it does not persuade me to join its rejection of Ebb and Watkins.