Page:McGhee v. State, 334 Ark. 543 (1998).pdf/4

Rh (1846). The policy of adhering to precedent, or the doctrine of stare decisis, is fundamental to the common law. Precedent governs until it gives a result so patently wrong, so manifestly unjust, that a break becomes unavoidable. Parish v. Pitts, 244 Ark. 1239, 1252, 429 S.W.2d 45, 52 (1968). The court in Parish, setting out the test for determining whether a case should be overruled, stated the following:

Having determined as we have here that a rule established by precedent no longer gives a just result it must then be determined whether the rights of those who have justifiably relied upon the established precedents are of greater weight in this case than that the rule be corrected. The test is whether it is more important that the matter remain settled than that it be settled correctly. Brickhouse v. Hill, 167 Ark. 513, 522, 268 S.W. 865 (1925).

Id. at 1253.

[5] In more recent decisions, this court has stated that there is a strong presumption of the validity of prior decisions. Thompson v. Sanford, 381 Ark. 365, 663 S.W.2d 932 (1984) (citing Walt Bennet Ford, Inc. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist., 274 Ark. 208, 624 S.W.2d 426 (1981)). The court in Sanders v. County of Sebastian, 324 Ark. 433, 922 S.W.2d 334 (1996), stated:

While we do have the power to overrule a previous decision, it is necessary, as a matter of public policy, to uphold prior decisions unless a great injury or injustice would result. ''Independence Fed. Bank v. Payne Webber'', 302 Ark. 324, 789 S.W.2d 725 (1990); Thompson v. Sanford, 281 Ark. 365, 663 S.W.2d 932 (1984). The United States Supreme Court has recognized that adherence to precedent promotes stability, predictability, and respect for judicial authority. ''Hilton v. S.C. Pub. Rys. Comm'n, 502 U.S. 197 (1991), citing Vasquez v. Hiller'', 474 U.S. 254, 265-66 (1986).

Id. at 435-436.

Thus, in the case before the court, the State has the burden of showing that our refusal to overrule Harmon would result in injustice or great injury. Id. The State has not met its burden. It makes the argument that because the broad power to revoke probation remains possible when a fine is imposed, it is not unreasonable to extend that power and conclude that a modification of probation should also be available. However, the State gives no