Court Opinion

ID: 9663705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:48:49.283283+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:55.486147
License: Public Domain

Danhof, J.,
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I am in agreement with the majority on all of the issues considered except the question of *464considering the defendant’s juvenile record for sentencing purposes. My reasons for dissent are twofold. First, I believe People v McFarlin, 41 Mich App 116 (1972), was wrongly decided. See People v Pence, 42 Mich App 215 (1972). Second, at the time McFarlin was decided it appeared well-settled that a sentencing judge could make use of a juvenile record. In my view the panel that decided McFarlin should have limited themselves to expressing dissatisfaction with the rule and left any attempted change to the Legislature or the Supreme Court. There is certainly room for disagreement on the wisdom of the statute and the language employed by the Legislature is something less than crystal clear. Since the matter is certainly not one of correcting a clear and obvious error and the matter does not seem to rise to constitutional dimensions we should adhere to the pre-McFarlin cases allowing the use of a juvenile record. By so doing we could avoid a situation such as the one we have now where a trial judge, no matter how diligent his research, simply cannot tell what the law is. In the words of Mr. Justice Brandéis, dissenting in Burnet v Coronado Oil & Gas Co, 285 US 393; p 52 S Ct 443; 76 L Ed 815 (1932):
"Stare decisis is usually the wise policy, because in most matters it is more important that the applicable rule of law be settled than that it be settled right. (Citations, omitted.) This is commonly true even where the error is a matter of serious concern, provided correction can be had by legislation.”