Court Opinion

ID: 9538781
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 07:41:36.128486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:09.693504
License: Public Domain

Abbott, J.,
concurring: Having dissented in State v. Smith, 254 Kan. 16,1 feel obligated to explain authoring the majority opinion in this case. I thought I was correct when I dissented in Smith and have not changed my opinion on that subject. However, as one sage put it, when you dissent to the majority’s interpretation of the legislature’s intent in adopting a. statute and the legislature does not change the statute in response to the dissent, then you put salt on the dissent and eat it.
That is another way of saying the legislature has no quarrel with the majority’s interpretation of the legislative intent in adopting the statute. I accept that fact and, therefore, find that once the majority opinion in State v. Smith, 254 Kan. 16, is accepted as correctly setting forth the legislature’s intent in adopting K.S.A. 1994 Supp. 21-4603, no other conclusion may be reached than that expressed in the majority opinion.