Court Opinion

ID: 9797816
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:29:54.485596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:49.332814
License: Public Domain

*197Agosti, J.,
concurring:
I concur with the majority. I write separately to respond to the concurrences of Chief Justice Maupin and Justice Rose. Rehearing was granted in this case pursuant to NRAP 40(c)(2), which states: “The court may consider rehearings in the following circumstances: (i) When the court has overlooked or misapprehended a . . . material question of law in the case ...” As the majority notes, we relied in our original opinion on Perkins v. Komarnyckyj,1 an Arizona case, but failed to apply its holding to the question of whether all jurors must participate in all deliberations. We granted rehearing for the limited purpose of examining Perkins to determine whether we should adopt its reasoning for Nevada. The concurring justices, however, have now taken the opportunity to discuss matters not on the table for rehearing and have rendered advisory opinions on an issue not currently before the court.
Chief Justice Maupin “weighs in” with an opinion on the legal principle he would have adopted in a case from which he recused himself, DeJesus v. Flick.2 He reminds us all that DeJesus was a four-to-three split decision and that the fourth majority vote was a district judge sitting by designation in his place.
I suggest that it may be inappropriate to gratuitously remark about how one would vote on an issue not before the court for resolution. We do not know whether the identical issue is pending in a case awaiting resolution before us or in any court.3 I think the better course is to decide a case in controversy when it is presented.

 834 P.2d 1260 (Ariz. 1992).

 116 Nev. 812, 7 P.3d 459 (2000).

 Nevada Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3B(9).