Court Opinion

ID: 9702721
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 23:21:53.948962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:21:40.839265
License: Public Domain

E. C. Penzien, J.
(concurring). I agree with the results announced by this Court in the opinion by Judge Jansen, and I agree for the most part with her analysis of the law.
I am unable to find any "intent” in the minds of the majority of the legislators. However, it seems undeniable that the Legislature has spoken in clear and unmistakable language by the enact*160ment of MCL 768.7a(2); MSA 28.1030(1X2), which requires the results reached in these cases.
Defendant Young argues that the legislative enactments should not be followed, claiming that under facts different from those in his case, the results could be Draconian. The results are certainly not Draconian as applied to the facts in defendant Young’s case. Whether there may be some constitutional prohibition against the application of the legislative enactments to the facts of a different case should await announcement in a case clearly presenting such facts.
Finally, I do not concur in the announcement, in dicta, in the opinion by Judge Jansen that the ruling in this case should be given prospective application only. In my judgment, such an announcement should await presentation and full argument of a case requiring the decision.