Court Opinion

ID: 9706514
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:45:24.297567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:23.296569
License: Public Domain

Reilly, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I join in part i of the majority opinion. However, because I am convinced that defendant was not entitled to an instruction under MCL 333.7403(2)(b); MSA 14.15(7403)(2)(b) regardless of the provisions of MCL 768.32(2); MSA 28.1055(2), I would not reach the constitutional issue. Booth Newspapers v Univ of Michigan Bd of Regents, 444 Mich 211, 234; 507 NW2d 422 (1993) ("[TJhere exists a general presumption by this Court that we will not reach constitutional issues that are not necessary to resolve a case.”) In my opinion, in spite of the directive from the Supreme Court, the discussion in the majority opinion regarding the constitutionality of MCL 768.32(2); MSA 28.1055(2) is merely dicta that will lead to inconsistent results and confusion in the trial courts.