Court Opinion

ID: 9659231
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:35:47.604753+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:05.270519
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
The reliance on State v. Tamburano, 201 Neb. 703, 271 N.W.2d 472 (1978), by the majority is misplaced. Tamburano did not relieve the trial court of its heretofore mandatory duty to instruct the jury that each essential element of a crime must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Hayes, 187 Neb. 325, 190 N.W.2d 621 (1971). Tamburano stands *894for the simple principle that if the defendant desires a lesser-included instruction, some evidence must be present in the record tending to show that a lesser crime was in fact committed. We specifically did not deal with burden of proof.
In this case we simply are not able to state the standard by which the jury found that the amount attempted to be stolen was $12,000. In the absence of a specific instruction by the trial court that the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, the error is obvious and the case must be reversed and remanded.
McCown and Caporale, JJ., join in this dissent.