Court Opinion

ID: 9740224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:30:22.468429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:14.772509
License: Public Domain

McCORMICK, Justice
(concurring specially).
While I think it would be unwise and unjust, I do not question the authority of the General Assembly to define involuntary manslaughter without a mental element. As noted in division IV of the dissent, the wisdom and justice of a statute are for the legislature to decide. To the extent it suggests otherwise, I do not join the court’s opinion. However, I join the remainder of the opinion and concur in the result because I do not believe the General Assembly did omit the recklessness element in section 707.5(1). We are required by section 4.1(2) to construe statutory language in context, and omitting the recklessness element from section 707.5(1) would be repugnant to the context of the provision.
LeGRAND, REES, and HARRIS, JJ., join this special concurrence.