Cite as 2016 Ark. 157
What the majority does not explain, because it cannot, is that Rule 402 and Rule 501 have virtually identical language.[1] If we did not intend to give the General Assembly the authority to modify or supplement Rule 402 then why would we have a rule that states exactly that? I believe this court should follow the plain meaning of its own rules. Furthermore, I believe the majority opinion only further confuses practitioners and legislators. Accordingly, I dissent.
Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks; and The Brad Hendricks Law Firm, by: Christopher R. Heil and George Wise, for petitioner.
Huckabay Law Firm, PLC, by: D. Michael Huckabay, Jr., and Kathryn B. Knisley, for respondents WIS International, Inc., and Washington Inventory Services, Inc.
McMillan, McCorkle, Curry & Bennington, L.L.P., by: F. Thomas Curry; and Munson, Rowlett, Moore, by: Shane Strabala and Kara B. Mikles, for respondent Anthony Adams.
Law Office of David H. Williams, PLLC, by: David H. Williams, for Arkansas Trial Lawyers Association, amicus curiae.
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, LLP, by: Gregory T. Jones and Kristen S. Moyers, for American Trucking Associations, Inc. and Arkansas Trucking Association, Inc., amici curiae.
- ↑ In addition to Arkansas Rule of Evidence 402 and 501, Rules 508(b), 901(10), 902(10) and 1002 also contain language that permits the General Assembly to modify or supplement the evidentiary rules.
21
