Opinion ID: 2070372
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: endorsement of witnesses

Text: Jackson next contends that the State must endorse on the information the name of any witness who will testify at the enhancement hearing to determine applicability of the habitual criminal penalty. Jackson points to § 29-2221(2), which, in part, provides: Where punishment of an accused as an habitual criminal is sought, the facts with reference thereto must be charged in the indictment or information which contains the charge of the felony upon which the accused is prosecuted.... In the information filed against Jackson, there is the allegation that Jackson committed a felony in the State of Nebraska and had been twice previously convicted of a crime, sentenced and committed to prison, in this state or any other state, or by United States for terms not less than one year each be deemed to be an habitual criminal. Jackson then refers to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1602 (Reissue 1985), which requires that the prosecuting attorney shall endorse on the information the names of the witnesses known to such prosecutor at the time the information is filed. As noted in State v. Golgert, 223 Neb. 950, 953, 395 N.W.2d 520, 523 (1986), the purpose of an information, § 29-1602, is to ` inform the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the charge being made against him in order that he may prepare his defense thereto and also be able to plead the judgment rendered thereon as a bar to a later prosecution for the same offense.`  (Quoting State v. McGee, 221 Neb. 557, 378 N.W.2d 674 (1985).) Endorsement of witnesses' names on the information is required to provide a defendant with the identity of persons who may testify against the defendant and to afford the defendant an opportunity to investigate concerning such witnesses, if necessary to prepare a defense at trial. See, State v. Ellis, 223 Neb. 779, 393 N.W.2d 719 (1986); State v. Keith, 189 Neb. 536, 203 N.W.2d 500 (1973); Hallett v. State, 109 Neb. 311, 190 N.W. 862 (1922); Ossenkop v. State, 86 Neb. 539, 126 N.W. 72 (1910). The habitual criminal penalty, however, is not a separate criminal offense, but is an enhanced penalty permissible to punish repetitive criminal conduct after a defendant's conviction on a principal charge and a subsequent finding of the defendant's habitual criminal status. See, State v. Luna, 211 Neb. 630, 319 N.W.2d 737 (1982); State v. Rolling, 209 Neb. 243, 307 N.W.2d 123 (1981); State v. Sheldon, 179 Neb. 377, 138 N.W.2d 428 (1965); Gamron v. Jones, 148 Neb. 645, 28 N.W.2d 403 (1947); Rains v. State, 142 Neb. 284, 5 N.W.2d 887 (1942). In a sentence hearing, a court, generally, has broad discretion concerning the source of information and the type of information to be considered. See, United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 92 S.Ct. 589, 30 L.Ed.2d 592 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 69 S.Ct. 1079, 93 L.Ed. 1337 (1949); United States ex rel. Welch v. Lane, 738 F.2d 863 (7th Cir.1984). In State v. Goodpasture, 215 Neb. 341, 345, 338 N.W.2d 446, 449 (1983), this court expressed that, in gaining information for the purpose of sentencing, a sentencing court `may consider reports of probation officers, police reports, affidavits, and other information including his own observations of the defendant. A presentence investigation has nothing to do with the issue of guilt....' (Citing and quoting from State v. Rose, 183 Neb. 809, 164 N.W.2d 646 (1969).) See, also, State v. Dillon, 222 Neb. 131, 382 N.W.2d 353 (1986). In addition, the Nebraska Evidence Rules do not apply at a sentence hearing. State v. Dillon, supra . See Neb.Evid.R. 1101(4) (Neb. Rev.Stat. § 27-1101(4) (Reissue 1985)). As noted in State v. Goodpasture, supra 215 Neb. at 345, 338 N.W.2d at 449: `The latitude allowed a sentencing judge at a presentence hearing to determine the nature and length of punishment, other than in recidivist cases, is almost without limitation as long as it is relevant to the issue.'  (Emphasis supplied.) See, also, State v. Rose, supra . However, as the U.S. Supreme Court expressed in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 358, 97 S.Ct. 1197, 1204, 51 L.Ed.2d 393 (1977): [I]t is now clear that the sentencing process, as well as the trial itself, must satisfy the requirements of the Due Process Clause. In Specht v. Patterson, 386 U.S. 605, 87 S.Ct. 1209, 18 L.Ed.2d 326 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court, examining Colorado's Sex Offenders Act, which authorized sentencing a habitual sex offender to an indeterminate sentence from 1 day to life in prison, concluded: The case is not unlike those under recidivist statutes where an habitual criminal issue is a distinct issue ... on which a defendant must receive reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard.... Due process, in other words, requires that he be present with counsel, have an opportunity to be heard, be confronted with witnesses against him, have the right to cross-examine, and to offer evidence of his own. 386 U.S. at 610, 87 S.Ct. at 1212. See, also, Oyler v. Boles, 368 U.S. 448, 82 S.Ct. 501, 7 L.Ed.2d 446 (1962); Chandler v. Fretag, 348 U.S. 3, 75 S.Ct. 1, 99 L.Ed. 4 (1954); Government of Virgin Islands v. George, 741 F.2d 643 (3d Cir.1984); A. Campbell, Law of Sentencing §§ 67, 85 (1978). Regarding a hearing to determine whether a convicted defendant is a habitual criminal as defined in § 29-2221, we hold that the defendant is entitled to be present with counsel, have an opportunity to be heard at such hearing, be confronted with witnesses against the defendant, exercise the right of cross-examination, and offer evidence. See Specht v. Patterson, supra . We further hold that, while § 29-2221(2) requires that an information contain allegations of facts concerning a defendant's status as a habitual criminal, names of witnesses who may testify at the enhancement hearing are not required to be endorsed on the information charging the defendant with the crime for which a conviction will be the basis to impose the habitual criminal penalty. Cf. State v. Davis, 199 Neb. 165, 256 N.W.2d 678 (1977) (for imposition of the habitual criminal penalty, the information on which the defendant is prosecuted must allege that the defendant has twice previously been convicted of a crime, sentenced, and committed to prison for a term not less than 1 year for each such previous conviction). In the absence of a sentencing court's abuse of discretion, the sentencing court's procedure utilized for presentation of information at a hearing for imposition of the habitual criminal penalty prescribed by § 29-2221 will be sustained on appeal. See Waite v. State, 169 Neb. 113, 98 N.W.2d 688 (1959). In State v. Davis, 224 Neb. 518, 521, 398 N.W.2d 729, 731 (1987), we stated: It is well established that the existence of a prior conviction and the identity of the accused as the person convicted may be shown by any competent evidence, including the oral testimony of the accused and duly authenticated records maintained by the courts or penal and custodial authorities. (Quoting State v. Luna, 211 Neb. 630, 319 N.W.2d 737 (1982).) An authenticated record establishing a prior conviction of a defendant with the same name is prima facie sufficient to establish identity for the purpose of enhancing punishment; and, in the absence of any denial or contradictory evidence, is sufficient to support a finding by the court that the accused has been convicted prior thereto. State v. Micek, 193 Neb. 379, 386, 227 N.W.2d 409, 414 (1975) (citing and quoting from State v. Roan Eagle, 182 Neb. 535, 156 N.W.2d 131 (1968)). See, also, State v. Marlenee, 199 Neb. 543, 259 N.W.2d 923 (1977). We note that Jackson did not request a continuance after the previously undisclosed witnesses had testified at the enhancement hearing. Jackson does not claim that his cross-examination of any witness at the enhancement hearing was prevented or restricted as a result of the State's nondisclosure of the identity of any witness before such witness testified at the enhancement hearing. Additionally, Jackson does not claim that the State's nondisclosure of witness identification prevented or restricted Jackson from presentation of any evidence bearing upon applicability of the habitual criminal penalty. Further, Jackson acknowledged at trial that his name was Ricky Dean Jackson and that he had three prior felony convictions. Jackson did not deny that he was the same person named in the court records for the felony convictions, judgments, and commitments in 1974, 1975, and 1979. Also, Jackson did not offer any evidence to contradict that he was the person named in each commitment to prison for a term not less than 1 year, as reflected in the authenticated copies of the judgments and commitments. There was sufficient and appropriate evidence before the trial court to establish Jackson's identity with the person named in the documentary evidence, that is, the duly authenticated copies of the former judgments and commitments from courts in the State of Nebraska. Such authenticated copies presented a prima facie case of such former judgments and commitments. See Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2222 (Reissue 1985). In addition, Neb.Rev. Stat. § 29-2308 (Reissue 1985) provides in part: No judgment shall be set aside, or new trial granted ... for error as to any matter of pleading or procedure, if the Supreme Court, after an examination of the entire cause, shall consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred. We find no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court, no substantial miscarriage of justice, and no prejudice to Jackson by the court's allowing witnesses whose names had not been endorsed on the information to testify at the hearing to determine whether Jackson was an habitual criminal.