Court Opinion

ID: 9549778
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:24:39.036452+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:54.381468
License: Public Domain

GOLDEN, Justice, specially
concurring.
I concur in the reversal of the conviction on the simple ground that the state hospital’s mental examination and subsequent letter report did not comply with the statutory requirements. Appellant raised only that issue on appeal. We should decide the case on that single issue and restrain ourselves from unnecessarily expanding the opinion. Without such restraint, we serve up dicta on points of law or trial strategies or other matters “merely as a majority of the court may at that particular time consider them of future importance. To me, this amounts to the issuance of advisory opinions, a procedure that we ordinarily reject.” Stuebgen v. State, 548 P.2d 870, 886-87 (Wyo.1976) (McClintock J., specially concurring). See also State v. Rosachi, 549 P.2d 318, 322 (Wyo.1976).