Court Opinion

ID: 9511633
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:06:34.821026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:06.735270
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE NELSON
concurs.
¶46 I concur in our Order and Opinion; however, I do so primarily on the following rationale. In my view, Dawson has an Article II, Section *46310, individual privacy right to determine to end his life by acceding to his sentence of execution, rather than remaining in prison for the rest of his life. While I understand and appreciate that his attorneys have Dawson’s “best interests” at heart in trying to fight their client's determination to end his appeals, since Dawson has now made his wishes known, those wishes represent his “best interests.” Because Dawson has been found to be mentally competent and able to make decisions about ending his appeals, then it is his expressed judgment that must control, not that of his counsel. While I disagree with Dawson that his counsel have any agenda in this matter other than protecting the rights of their client, Dawson has the paramount right to end his appeals, and thus his life, under the personal autonomy component of the right of individual privacy guaranteed under Article 11, Section 10, of Montana’s Constitution. See, Armstrong v. State, 1999 MT 261, ¶¶ 56, 72, 296 Mont. 361, ¶¶ 56, 72, 989 P.2d 364, ¶¶ 56, 72.