Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1301.01 — NE Code / Chapter 29 / Section 29-1301.01
View Statute 29-1301.01
Status: in_force

If any person shall commit an offense against the person of another, such accused person may be tried in the county in which the offense is committed, or in any county into or out of which the person upon whom the offense was committed may, in the prosecution of the offense, have been brought, or in which an act is done by the accused in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense, or in aiding, abetting, or procuring another to commit such offense.

Laws 1957, c. 103, § 2, p. 364.

Two jury instructions read in conjunction with one another correctly instructed the jury that the offenses must have been "committed in this state." Taken as a whole, the instructions as to venue did not relieve the State of its burden to prove the acts were committed in Nebraska, and the defendant was not prejudiced as to necessitate a reversal on these grounds. State v. Lee, 304 Neb. 252, 934 N.W.2d 145 (2019).

Two jury instructions read in conjunction with one another correctly instructed the jury that the offenses must have been "committed in this state." Taken as a whole, the instructions as to venue did not relieve the State of its burden to prove the acts were committed in Nebraska, and the defendant was not prejudiced as to necessitate a reversal on these grounds. State v. Lee, 304 Neb. 252, 934 N.W.2d 145 (2019).

Although another county was the situs of the felonious sexual assault and where victim's clothing was found, venue was proper where sufficient circumstantial evidence existed from which a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the victim was originally abducted in county where trial was held. State v. Phelps, 241 Neb. 707, 490 N.W.2d 676 (1992).

Although another county was the situs of the felonious sexual assault and where victim's clothing was found, venue was proper where sufficient circumstantial evidence existed from which a fact finder could reasonably conclude that the victim was originally abducted in county where trial was held. State v. Phelps, 241 Neb. 707, 490 N.W.2d 676 (1992).

A motion for change of venue filed pursuant to this statute is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Kern, 224 Neb. 177, 397 N.W.2d 23 (1986).

A motion for change of venue filed pursuant to this statute is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose ruling will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of that discretion. State v. Kern, 224 Neb. 177, 397 N.W.2d 23 (1986).

Where defendant resisted officer in execution of his office on county line road, prosecution could be in either of the counties divided by the road. State v. Lindsey, 193 Neb. 442, 227 N.W.2d 599 (1975).

Where defendant resisted officer in execution of his office on county line road, prosecution could be in either of the counties divided by the road. State v. Lindsey, 193 Neb. 442, 227 N.W.2d 599 (1975).

This section permits trial either in county where offense was committed or in any county into or out of which the person upon whom the offense was committed may, in the prosecution of the offense, have been brought, or in which an act is done by accused in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense. State v. Garza, 191 Neb. 118, 214 N.W.2d 30 (1974).

This section permits trial either in county where offense was committed or in any county into or out of which the person upon whom the offense was committed may, in the prosecution of the offense, have been brought, or in which an act is done by accused in instigating, procuring, promoting, or aiding in the commission of the offense. State v. Garza, 191 Neb. 118, 214 N.W.2d 30 (1974).

District court for Douglas County had jurisdiction of rape case where prisoner allegedly committed acts in county in furtherance of offense and prosecutrix was brought back into county after alleged rape. Garza v. Wolff, 528 F.2d 208 (8th Cir. 1975).

District court for Douglas County had jurisdiction of rape case where prisoner allegedly committed acts in county in furtherance of offense and prosecutrix was brought back into county after alleged rape. Garza v. Wolff, 528 F.2d 208 (8th Cir. 1975).