Opinion ID: 1714841
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: endorsed witnesses requirement

Text: Cebuhar's first two assigned errors focus on the State's failure to endorse the names of its witnesses on the information. Prior to the receipt of evidence, Cebuhar objected to this failure and requested that the State not be allowed to call any witness. The district court overruled the objection and granted the State's motion for leave to endorse the names of the witnesses on the information. Cebuhar contends the court erred in both instances. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1602 (Reissue 1995) provides that a prosecutor, when filing an information, shall endorse thereon the names of the witnesses known to him at the time of filing the same; and at such time thereafter, as the court or a judge thereof in vacation, in its or his discretion, may prescribe, he shall endorse thereon the names of such other witnesses as shall then be known to him. A trial court may allow witnesses to be endorsed after an information is filed when doing so does not prejudice the defendant in the preparation of his defense. State v. Boppre, 234 Neb. 922, 453 N.W.2d 406 (1990). See, also, State v. Mecum, 225 Neb. 293, 404 N.W.2d 431 (1987). The purpose of § 29-1602 is to notify the defendant as to witnesses who may testify against him and give him an opportunity to investigate them. State v. Boppre, supra . In order to obtain a reversal on the grounds of an additional endorsement of witnesses, the defendant must have requested a continuance at trial and must demonstrate prejudice. State v. Brandon, 240 Neb. 232, 481 N.W.2d 207 (1992); State v. Boppre, supra . While we do not condone the State's carelessness in failing to endorse its witnesses' names on the information, we note that although Cebuhar did request leave to take the depositions of the endorsed witnesses, he did not make a motion for a continuance. Moreover, we fail to see how Cebuhar was prejudiced by the court's granting the State's motion to endorse witnesses. The State called only three witnesses to testify at trial: Specht (victim), Pachunka (arresting officer), and Tankesley (victim). Cebuhar does not argue, nor can it be seriously entertained, that he was surprised by the fact that these three persons would testify against him. In fact, we have expressly rejected the contention that failure to endorse the name of an arresting officer prejudices a defendant, noting that the defendant would have reason to know that such police officer might be called as a witness. McCartney v. State, 129 Neb. 716, 717, 262 N.W. 679, 680 (1935). We conclude that the same reasoning applies to the failure to endorse the names of the alleged victims in that a defendant would have reason to know that the alleged victims will be called to testify at trial. The main thrust of § 29-1602 is to notify the defendant of the witnesses that will testify against him. State v. Boppre, supra . Under the facts of this case, Cebuhar was clearly aware that the arresting officer and two alleged victims might be called to testify against him. That being the case, the first two assigned errors are without merit.