Court Opinion

ID: 9734343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:32:19.569189+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:48.066829
License: Public Domain

QUILLEN, Justice,
with whom McNEILLY, Justice, joins, concurring:
Having expressed my view in Hunter v. State, I find it unnecessary and undesirable to speak at any length in Evans v. State. In my judgment, the result reached by the majority is not constitutionally required and does not pay sufficient deference to the legislative policy-making role. But I do note that, as applied prospectively, the broad constitutional rule fashioned by the Court provides sufficient flexibility for the orderly administration of justice. Moreover, if the General Assembly is dissatisfied with what the Court has done, the General Assembly can, consistent with the Court’s opinions, change the statutory construction decision in Davis and, by the enactment for weapon possession of true enhancement provisions to the sections of the Criminal Code dealing with violent felonies, alter the result of the constitutional decisions in Hunter and Evans.
Solely on the basis of stare decisis, I concur in the judgment of the Court.