Legal Opinion · Dissent

Slayton v. Shumway

Arizona Supreme Court

Decided November 6, 1990No. CV-90-0356-APPublished

1DissentCameron, Justice

I dissent with the majority for two reasons. First, I believe this is a “two-headed *93calf,” and contrary to the single subject rule. The first 10 sections provide for certain rights for victims of crime. The 10 sections appear to be consistent with each other. Section 11, however, is quite different in that it takes away the rule-making power in criminal matters from the supreme court and gives it to the legislature. This is a significant difference.

Second, I believe that this provision is contrary to the inherent right of the courts to provide rules of procedure for the conduct of the state…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Craft v. CommonwealthCourt of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976) · 1961
  2. Garabedian v. Donald William, Inc.Supreme Court of New Hampshire · 1965
  3. Fair v. StateSupreme Court of Georgia · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API