Court Opinion

ID: 9672991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:03:59.636403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:19.576744
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The first count of the information charged the defendant with feloniously and maliciously stabbing Jiajck Tiegs with intent to wound under section 28-410, R. R. S., 1943. The second count of the information charged the defendant with an unlawful and felonious assault with a dangerous weapon upon Clifford M. Stack, a law enforcement officer, engaged in his official duties under section 28-729.01, R. S. Supp., 1967. The defendant requested the court to instruct the jury, with respect to both the first count and the second count, that the elements of the particular offense also might constitute the lesser included offense of assault or assault and battery. *807The court did so instruct the jury as to Count I, but faffed to do so as to Count II. The jury returned a verdict of not guilty on Count I, but found the defendant guilty of the lesser and included crime of assault and battery; and found the defendant guilty as charged on Count II.
The majority opinion here finds it “unnecessary to reach the issue of whether knowledge that the victim is a police officer is an essential element of the crime charged” under Count II.
It should be noted here that the second count of the information itself specifically charged the defendant with unlawfully and feloniously assaulting with a dangerous weapon, “Clifford M. Stack, whom the said Charles LaPlante, knew to be a law enforcement official * * *.” The jury was specifically instructed that among! the essential elements required to be established beyond a reasonable doubt on Count II was: “* * * 4. That defendant knew he (Clifford Stack) was a law enforcement officer.”
Under 18 U. S. C. A., Crimes and Criminal Procedure, § 111, p. 11, the federal statute after which section 28-729.01, R. S. Supp., 1967, was apparently patterned, there is a split of authority as to whether scienter or guilty knowledge is essential. See, Annotation, 10 A. L. R. 3d 833. The appropriate rule should require proof that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the person assaulted was a law enforcement officer. It would also seem obvious that the information here properly and specifically charged that knowledge, and the jury was so instructed.
It is difficult to accept the conclusion of the majority opinion that the evidence is conclusive that the defendant knew Stack was a law enforcement officer. That opinion notes that the defendant had known Officer Stack when they were in high school, and that they had worked together on construction work. It does not note that Stack had been a police officer for less than 2 *808months at the time of the assault, and there is no evidence in the record that the defendant knew that fact. The evidence also shows that the officers arrived in an unmarked car and were both in plain clothes, with no weapons or badges visible. The defendant was engaged in a fight with a crowd surrounding the combatants. The officers walked up to the crowd and told the spectators to move away. One officer, not Officer Stack, stated to the defendant: “This is the police,” and the defendant said nothing in response. Under these circumstances, it would certainly seem to be invading the province of the jury to hold that the evidence was conclusive that the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that Stack was a law enforcement officer.
“While, under some statutes, to be guilty of this offense the offender must know that the person assaulted is an officer, it is not necessary that the person assaulting the officer knows that the officer is about his official duties. Under other statutes ignorance of the fact that the person assaulted was a peace officer in the discharge of his duties is no defense to the crime, but it may be shown to reduce the grade of the offense from an aggravated to a simple assault.” 6 C. J. S., Assault and Battery, § 84, pi. 939.
A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on his theory of the case as disclosed by the evidence. Where the evidence, if believed by the jury, could absolve the defendant from guilt of the greater offense, but would support a finding of guilt of the lesser offense, an instruction as to the lesser offense should be mandatory when requested.
Smith, J., joins in this dissent.