Corina Mendoza, Petitioner v. Wis International, Inc., Anthony Adams, and Washington Inventory Serv — Baker, J…

Summary

The dissenting justices would have answered the certified separation-of-powers question in the negative because the seat-belt statute was inapplicable to Mendoza, a back-seat passenger, and because the challenged provision was substantive legislation rather than an impermissible evidentiary rule. They also reasoned that the statute was constitutional under the plain meaning of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence, which permit statutory exceptions concerning admissibility. The dissenters further maintained that the court should not decide an academic constitutional question.