¶1 OPINION
¶2 The decision in this case is controlled by Scott v. State, 519 P.2d 774 (Alaska 1974), unless we are persuaded to overrule Scott. In State v. Dunlop, 721 P.2d 604 (Alaska 1986), we stated:
We do not lightly overrule our past decisions _ [I]t is a “salutory policy to follow past decisions.” ... [Wjhere we are “clearly convinced the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changed conditions, and that more good than harm would result from a departure from precedent,” we will so depart.
¶3 Id. at 610 (footnote omitted) (quoting State v. Souter, 606 P.2d 399, 400 (Alaska 1980)). We are not persuaded that these standards are met, at least with respect to Scott’s holding that the production of the names of non-alibi *470 witnesses and their statements cannot be constitutionally compelled. Because the reciprocal discovery provisions enacted in section 1 of Chapter 95 SLA 1996 are non-severable, and at least one of those provisions violates article I, section 9 of Alaska’s constitution, the entire section is invalid. The pre-existing version of Alaska Criminal Rule 16 must remain in effect. AFFIRMED.