Opinion ID: 2166128
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Conviction for First Degree False Imprisonment Supports Use of Weapon Conviction

Text: Thurman also argues that the general intent crime of first degree false imprisonment cannot support a use of a weapon conviction. Thurman contends that to convict him of first degree false imprisonment, the State was required to show that he acted knowingly, but not that he acted intentionally. As relevant to this case, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-314 (Cum.Supp.2006) provides that [a] person commits false imprisonment in the first degree if he or she knowingly restrains or abducts another person . . . under terrorizing circumstances or under circumstances which expose the person to the risk of serious bodily injury . . . . Knowingly was defined in the jury instructions as a perception of facts required to make up the crime and may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding the act. Intentionally was defined in those same instructions as willfully or purposely. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that `the limited distinction between knowledge and purpose has not been considered important since there is good reason for imposing liability whether the defendant desired or merely knew of the practical certainty of the results.' [11] The Court also noted that `purpose' corresponds loosely with the common-law concept of specific intent, while `knowledge' corresponds loosely with the concept of general intent. [12] Given this limited distinction, it is clear that since the State must show Thurman acted knowingly in order to show he falsely imprisoned A.W. such a requirement is an indication that first degree false imprisonment as charged in this case is a general intent crime. [13] As noted above, with a general intent crime, a showing of intent by the State is required, but may be inferred from the commission of the acts constituting the elements of the crime. [14] For the same reasons expressed with respect to first degree sexual assault, it is clear that a conviction for first degree false imprisonment would support a conviction for use of a weapon to commit a felony. It is not inconsistent to find that a defendant could use a weapon for the purpose of restraining or abducting someone under circumstances which are terrorizing or which expose someone to the risk of serious bodily injury. The district court also did not err in finding that first degree false imprisonment would support a use of a weapon conviction. Thurman's first assignment of error is without merit.