State v. Armstrong
Arizona Supreme Court
1DissentBernstein, Justice
I dissent from the majority opinion because of the cavalier manner in which they dispose of the right to trial by jury in this case. The issue presented is whether the trial court properly withdrew from the jury’s consideration the question of whether the appellant had suffered a prior felony conviction. Certainly the rule of stare decisis is entitled to great weight and should be adhered to unless the reason for the prior decisions have ceased to exist or the prior decisions are clearly erroneous and manifestly wrong. The doctrine is a flexible one. Stare decisis is indeed persuasive but it…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Rothweiler v. Superior Court of Pima CountyArizona Supreme Court · 1966
- State v. FurthWashington Supreme Court · 1940
- The People v. CaseyIllinois Supreme Court · 1948
- Beard v. StateCourt of Appeals of Maryland · 2001
- Brown v. GreerArizona Supreme Court · 1914
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.