Court Opinion

ID: 9738452
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:53:24.846617+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:06.190052
License: Public Domain

Wright, L,
dissenting.
I dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissents to State v. Grimes, 246 Neb. 473, 519 N.W.2d 507 (1994); State v. Williams, 247 Neb. 931, 531 N.W.2d 222 (1995); and State v. Wilson, 247 Neb. 948, 530 N.W.2d 925 (1995).
The majority finds that Plant was prejudiced as a matter of law because the jury was not instructed that malice is an element of second degree murder. A criminal defendant seeking postconviction relief has the burden of alleging and proving that the claimed error is prejudicial. State v. Jones, 246 Neb. 673, 522 N.W.2d 414 (1994). I am unable to conclude that Plant was so prejudiced when the complete record of the victim’s injuries is considered.
The facts as delineated in Plant’s direct appeal showed that the victim, an 18-month-old boy, died from injuries which occurred as a result of being thrown across the room by Plant. See State v. Plant, 236 Neb. 317, 461 N.W.2d 253 (1990). Doctors noted bruising and swelling on the forehead and massive swelling inside the head. There were a number of bruises, an abrasion on the chin, a number of rib fractures, a fracture of the distal femur, and a shattered pubic bone. The *59cause of death was traumatic head injury. Id.
Malice is defined as that condition of the mind which is manifested by the intentional doing of an unlawful act without just cause or excuse. See State v. Dean, 246 Neb. 869, 523 N.W.2d 681 (1994). Had the jury been given an instruction which included the element of malice, I have no doubt that the result would have been the same. Plant could not have provided any reason or excuse to justify his conduct, and he did not plead that he was not responsible by reason of insanity.
Plant claims that he was denied effective assistance of counsel by counsel’s failure to object to the instructions. To sustain a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel as a violation of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and thereby obtain reversal of a conviction, a defendant must show that (1) counsel’s performance was deficient and (2) such deficient performance prejudiced the defense, that is, demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. State v. Clausen, 247 Neb. 309, 527 N.W.2d 609 (1995). To demonstrate the first requirement, the defendant must establish that his attorney failed to perform at least as well as a lawyer with ordinary training and experience in criminal law. For the second requirement, he must demonstrate that he was prejudiced in the defense of the case as a result of the attorney’s actions or inactions. Id.
Plant cannot satisfy either component of the test. For at least 12 years, since State v. Rowe, 214 Neb. 685, 335 N.W.2d 309 (1983), no lawyer in the defense of a second degree murder charge has asserted that the jury instructions were erroneous because they did not contain the element of malice. Since previous lawyers faced with similar issues did not raise any objection to allegedly erroneous jury instructions, the lawyer’s performance in this case was equal to the performance of all other lawyers in a similar situation. I cannot say Plant’s counsel was deficient. More importantly, Plant cannot satisfy the second requirement. He has not shown that had the malice instruction been given, a reasonable probability existed that the result of the trial would have been different. See State v. Clausen, supra. The majority once again fails to explain any prejudice to the *60defendant other than to simply state that he was prejudiced. There has been no showing of prejudice to Plant.
A denial of a constitutional right does not always require a reversal of the conviction unless it results in prejudice to the accused. See Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967). In Rose v. Clark, 478 U.S. 570, 576-79, 106 S. Ct. 3101, 92 L. Ed. 2d 460 (1986), the Court stated:
In Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18[, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705] (1967), this Court rejected the argument that errors of constitutional dimension necessarily require reversal of criminal convictions. And since Chapman, “we have repeatedly reaffirmed the principle that an otherwise valid conviction should not be set aside if the reviewing court may confidently say, on the whole record, that the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S. 673, 681 [, 106 S. Ct. 1431, 89 L. Ed. 2d 674] (1986). That principle has been applied to a.wide variety of constitutional errors. E. g., id., at 684 (failure to permit cross-examination concerning witness bias); Rushen v. Spain, 464 U. S. 114, 118[, 104 S. Ct. 453, 78 L. Ed. 2d 267] (1983) (per curiam) (denial of right to be present at trial); United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 508-509[, 103 S. Ct. 1974, 76 L. Ed. 2d 96] (1983) (improper comment on defendant’s failure to testify); Moore v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 220, 232[, 98 S. Ct. 458, 54 L. Ed. 2d 424] (1977) (admission of witness identification obtained in violation of right to counsel); Milton v. Wainwright, 407 U. S. 371[, 92 S. Ct. 2174, 33 L. Ed. 2d 1] (1972) (admission of confession obtained in violation of right to counsel); Chambers v. Maroney, 399 U. S. 42, 52 — 53[, 90 S. Ct. 1975, 26 L. Ed. 2d 419] (1970) (admission of evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment). See also Hopper v. Evans, 456 U. S. 605, 613-614[, 102 S. Ct. 2049, 72 L. Ed. 2d 367] (1982) (citing Chapman and finding no prejudice from trial court’s failure to give lesser included offense instruction). Our application of harmless-error analysis in these cases *61has not reflected a denigration of the constitutional rights involved. Instead, as we emphasized earlier this Term:
“ ‘The harmless-error doctrine recognizes the principle that the central purpose of a criminal trial is to decide the factual question of the defendant’s guilt or innocence, United States v. Nobles, 422 U. S. 225, 230 [95 S. Ct. 2160, 45 L. Ed. 2d 141] (1975), and promotes public respect for the criminal process by focusing on the underlying fairness of the trial rather than on the virtually inevitable presence of immaterial error. Cf. R. Traynor, The Riddle of Harmless Error 50 (1970) (“Reversal for error, regardless of its effect on the judgment, encourages litigants to abuse the judicial process and bestirs the public to ridicule it”).’ Delaware v. Van Arsdall, supra, [475 U.S.] at 681.”
. . . Where a reviewing court can find that the record developed at trial establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the interest in fairness has been satisfied and the judgment should be affirmed. As we have repeatedly stated, “the Constitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one.” Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U. S., at 681; United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S., at 508-509.
We stated in State v. Timmerman, 240 Neb. 74, 89, 480 N.W.2d 411, 420 (1992), that “ ‘it is the duty of a reviewing court to consider the trial record as a whole and to ignore errors that are harmless, including most constitutional violations.’ ” In my opinion, without a showing that the malice instruction would probably have created a different result, the omission of malice from the instruction was harmless.
The majority states that requiring malice as an element of second degree murder is not a new rule of law, but that it has remained a material element since the adoption of the revised criminal code in 1977. See, State v. Williams, 247 Neb. 931, 531 N.W.2d 222 (1995); State v. Myers, 244 Neb. 905, 510 N.W.2d 58 (1994). The majority then states that for an information to be sufficient to charge a defendant with second degree murder, the information must allege that the accused *62caused the death of another purposely and maliciously, citing State v. Ladig, 246 Neb. 542, 519 N.W.2d 561 (1994); State v. Manzer, 246 Neb. 536, 519 N.W.2d 558 (1994); and State v. Grimes, 246 Neb. 473, 519 N.W.2d 507 (1994).
However, the court has not been entirely consistent. In State v. Cave, 240 Neb. 783, 789, 484 N.W.2d 458, 464 (1992), we stated: “In order to convict a person of second degree murder, the State is required to prove all three elements — the death, the intent to kill, and causation — beyond a reasonable doubt.” In State v. Blackson, 245 Neb. 833, 515 N.W.2d 773 (1994), which was decided less than 4 months after Myers, we affirmed a conviction for second degree murder in which the information did not contain the element of malice. Blackson was charged with intentionally, but without premeditation, killing Richard L. Green, Jr. We affirmed the conviction and stated that although the jury instructions did not define malice and did not specifically require malice as a necessary element of second degree murder, the jury found from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt each of the material elements of murder in the second degree. We held that a finding that the defendant killed another purposely and maliciously, but without deliberation and premeditation and without just cause or excuse, satisfies the requirement that the killing was done with malice.
Thus, until Myers, an instruction omitting malice was not noted as plain error, and until Grimes, an information charging second degree murder in the language of the statute was not noted as plain error. The only logical conclusion I can reach is that beginning with Myers, the court adopted a new rule of law regarding the omission of malice from the jury instructions. Beginning with Grimes, the court expanded the rule to include the omission of malice from the information. I continue to dissent from the position adopted by the majority in these cases.
Connolly, J., joins in this dissent.