State v. Forbush

¶ 57. (concurring). Because Justice Roggensack's opinion appears as *653the first opinion in print and electronic publications and inconsistently employs the words "we" and "us" (incorrectly in many instances, inasmuch as no justice is joining her opinion), it is important to clarify the precedential value of Justice Roggensack's opinion. It has none. See Justice Roggensack's op., ¶ 2, n.3 (explaining that four justices agree to reverse the decision of the court of appeals, although they do not agree on the rationale).

¶ 58. I agree to some extent with the writings of both Justice Roggensack and…