Does the doctrine of "stare decisis" need to be applied in the context of a constitutional error?

As a court of last resort, a court whose role is to provide guidance and workable procedures for our lower courts, we cannot simply cloak ourselves in the doctrine of stare decisis. That doctrine is " ' "a flexible one which permits this court to reconsider, and ultimately to depart from, our own prior precedent in an appropriate case." ' " (People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 117, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073.) " ' " It ... 'is based on the assumption that certainty, predictability and stability in the law are the major objectives of the legal system....' " ' " (Ibid.) As the "full" citation to Sedeno amply demonstrates (see ante, at pp. 905-906 of 77 Cal.Rptr.2d, at pp. 1128-1129 of 960 P.2d), these adjectives scarcely describe our lesser included offense jurisprudence, which has been plagued by uncertainty, unpredictability, and instability. " ' " '[A]lthough the doctrine [of stare decisis] does indeed serve important values, it nevertheless should not shield court-created error from correction.' " ' [Citation.]" (People v. Birks, supra, 19 Cal.4th at p. 117, 77 Cal.Rptr.2d 848, 960 P.2d 1073.) This is particularly true where, as here, the error is one of constitutional interpretation, as to which "only we can remedy the mistake. [Citations.]" (Ibid.)