Court Opinion

ID: 9529985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:56:05.829975+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:58.184540
License: Public Domain

WILLIAM A. BABLITCH, J.
¶ 47. {concurring). Although the concurrence presents a fairly persuasive case that the appellate standard of review should be independent of the decisions of a circuit court or court of appeals yet benefiting from the analyses of those courts, I do not join it. The issue has not been adequately briefed. In fact, both parties argue that the standard should be as stated in the majority opinion. At oral argument, the defendant discussed the standard of review for five minutes, arguing for a clearly erroneous standard, and stated that the State agreed with that position. In response, the State said nothing more than that it also advocated a clearly erroneous standard of review. Inasmuch as neither party supports the conclusion of the concurring opinion, this is not the appropriate case to depart from our precedent. Far better to wait until the issue is squarely joined and argued by two parties in adversarial position. Accordingly, I join the majority.