Court Opinion

ID: 9782582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 18:59:12.084545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:35:06.141995
License: Public Domain

*387HASELTON, J.,
concurring.
The dissent complains that the majority “repudiates without explanation” our prior decision on the “essential issue” in this case. See 175 Or App at 387 (Armstrong, J., dissenting). I was one of the judges who joined in our original majority opinion, State v. Amini, 154 Or App 589, 963 P2d 65 (1998), and I have, in fact, “switched sides.” There is an explanation: When faced with new and ultimately compelling arguments, judges can, and should, change their minds.
In Amini I, we referred, collaterally, to federal precedent. See 154 Or App at 596-99. However, because we did not reach the federal constitutional issues, we had no occasion to focus on, and grapple with, the principles that drive the majority’s analysis. I believe that analysis is unanswerable. Accordingly, I concur.