Opinion ID: 2218649
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The jury should be instructed as to the consequences of an insanity verdict to avoid speculation and conjecture (Assignment # 7).

Text: Defendant tendered an instruction (defendant's requested instruction No. 2) which purported to set out, in detail, the procedures which would be followed in the event of a verdict of acquittal on grounds of insanity.... The instruction was refused, and defendant assigns that action of the court as error. The law in this state on the question presented by defendant has been settled since 1979. In State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 218-19, 344 N.W.2d 433, 443 (1984), we held: The defendant assigns as error the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury with regard to the consequences of an acquittal by reason of insanity. In State v. Reitenbaugh, 204 Neb. 583, 284 N.W.2d 19 (1979), and State v. Williams, 205 Neb. 56, 287 N.W.2d 18 (1979), we held that it was not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct a jury in a criminal case of the consequences of a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity. Our reason for so holding was that, `in the absence of some specific statutory provision, a defendant's disposition is not a matter for the jury's concern.' Reitenbaugh, supra 204 Neb. at 585, 284 N.W.2d at 20. Defendant's contention in this regard is without merit.