State v. Peeler

Summary

This dissent argues that the court should have overruled its recent death-penalty precedent because that precedent was clearly wrong, departed from established law, and itself violated stare decisis. It rejects the view that a change in the court's panel or the recency of the precedent prevents correction of an erroneous decision. The dissent maintains that stare decisis requires restoring the prior legal framework when a recent decision has damaged it.