Court Opinion

ID: 9764158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:12:48.133187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:54.307841
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge,
dissenting.
Believing the Court of Appeals correctly decided the issue here presented, I respectfully dissent. The majority notes that “there is absolutely nothing in the legislative history of the 1991 amendments suggesting anyone intended for subsection (d) to apply to civil and criminal cases.” (Op. at 587, emphasis in original.) Likewise, there is nothing in that history suggesting the Legislature intended to exclude criminal cases from the application of subsection (d).
Whatever arguments would support this procedure in civil cases would, I believe, be equally applicable to criminal cases. Further, the Legislature has made obvious distinctions between former and retired judges. The jeopardy the majority foresees in the Court of Appeals’ analysis applies as well to civil matters.
*589I would adopt the Court of Appeals' analysis in all respects.