Court Opinion

ID: 9658554
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:04:39.113698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:56.661035
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Once, many years ago, I read that it was universally held that each person in society should obtain that, under the law, be it good or evil, which he deserves; and, further, that it is unjust that he should obtain *406a good, or be made to undergo an evil, which he does not deserve.
Under the majority decision, this Honorable Court has forsaken this universal conviction. Brings Plenty, termed “Blaine,” has escaped that which he deserves: A lifetime sentence, without parole, to the State Penitentiary. By his intent and his act, he took another man’s life. A jury convicted him, having heard all of the evidence.
Learned Hand once expressed: “We have to deal with words, and there is nothing more fluid than words.” The majority opinion has word fluidity; however, it does not make good sense nor does it achieve a just result. Specifically, the majority writing simply fails to appreciate the constitutional stance of the United States Supreme Court as reflected in Luce and Portash. If that is not bad enough, it overlooks precedent in this Court, namely Cody.
Is it not true that precedent fosters more precedent? Accumulating — they become law and lawyers depend upon it. The public has a right to depend upon it, also. In what manner does footnote 2 bring about a positive good to the settled law of this State? It acts only as a sounding board for an acidulous dissent in a previous case which did not carry the day.
I am in accord with the Chief Justice’s writing and believe, as does he, that the majority decision creates an artificial constitutional challenge to the murder conviction of Brings Plenty.
Therefore, I join in the Chief Justice’s dissent.