Court Opinion

ID: 9541859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:29:03.90889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:05:03.827273
License: Public Domain

WALTERS, Justice (dissenting). “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” (from Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland.) The majority has chosen in this case to say that “all cases” really means “only some cases.” Having authored the Bazan case referred t« by both the majority and the Court of Appeals, I am convinced that the discussion there on “aggrieved party” was unnecessary to that decision and that the opinion, instead, rested primarily on Bazan’s express agreement to waive any and all defenses and objections raised or that could be raised in the future, in return for dismissal of two charges against him. With the opportunity to reflect again upon a direct clash between a constitutional provision and more limiting language of a statute and a court-created rule, I am dismayed that I would even have suggested there could be a resolution against the constitutional language. I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion and profess a public mea culpa for lacking the wisdom in 1982 that permitted the second portion of the Bazan opinion to be written. It was no more correct then than is the majority decision today.