State v. Camacho , 337 N.C. 224 ( 1994 )

Justice Mitchell

concurring.

The result reached by the majority here is consistent with this Court’s decision in State v. Thomas, 325 N.C. 583, 386 S.E.2d 555 (1989). I dissented from the decision of the majority in Thomas, and I continue to believe that the reasoning of my dissent in that case was correct. Id. at 600-606, 386 S.E.2d at 564-68 (Mitchell, J., dissenting, joined by Webb, J.). However, the doctrine of stare decisis — which commands that courts abide by established binding precedent except in the most extraordinary circumstances — requires that I now accept Thomas as authoritative and concur in the decision of the majority in the present case.