Court Opinion

ID: 9503267
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:39:30.657066+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:21.428844
License: Public Domain

GILLETTE, J.,
concurring.
I concur in the analysis and conclusions of the lead opinion, including its reliance on State v. Hall, 339 Or 7, 115 P3d 908 (2005). I do so for a reason sufficiently important (at least to me) that I choose to state it separately.
In Hall, a majority of this court announced the rule of law that we apply today. Justice Durham offered a spirited and extensive dissent from that rule, id. at 37-52 (Durham, J., dissenting), which I found persuasive. I therefore joined it. In the present cases, the dissent makes the same analytical and interpretive points that were made in the Hall dissent. *631Were we writing on a clean slate, I might still find that message persuasive. But we are not writing on a clean slate. The dissent’s points, therefore, are — for me — an echo of an argument fairly waged, but lost. The spirit — the idea — of stare decisis calls for us to accept Hall, get behind it, and make it work. I understand that others feel differently (as they have every right to do) but I hear that call. I therefore join the lead opinion. See North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 US 711, 744-45, 89 S Ct 2072, 23 L Ed 2d 656 (1969) (Harlan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (explaining a similar approach).