Court Opinion

ID: 9726307
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 12:43:16.368489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:25.831143
License: Public Domain

Spencer and Boslaugh, JJ.,
dissenting.
The majority opinion herein violates a fundamental principle of constitutional construction. Neither the. State nor the defendant raise an issue as to the constitutionality of the Self-Defense Act, section 29-114, R. S. Supp., 1969. Yet the majority opinion declares the statute invalid without the benefit of briefs or arguments upon the issue of constitutionality.
The following from Stanton v. Mattson, 175 Neb. 767, 123 N. W. 2d 844, indicates the extent of this abrupt departure from well-defined precedent: “All acts of the Legislature are presumed to be constitutional. The courts will not declare an act of the Legislature unconstitutional except as a last resort on the facts before the court. Courts will not decide questions of constitutionality unless, they have been raised by a litigant whose interests are adversely affected. A court has no power to summarily pass upon the constitutionality of an act of the Legislature.”
It is unnecessary to reach any question of the constitutionality of section 29-114, R. S. Supp., 1969, in this case. The instruction relating to self-defense, which was given in this case, advised the jury that self-defense was “the use of such force by any means necessary to repel an attack as at the time appeared to defendant to be necessary.” (Emphasis supplied.) The instruction conformed to the statute in that the only limitation placed upon the force that might be used was that it be “necessary.”
The instruction as given also conformed to the instruction requested by the defendant except .that the trial court included a paragraph, taken from NJI 14.33, stating that a person who uses more force than that permitted by the definition contained in the instruction is criminally responsible therefor. The defendant contends that this part of the instruction was erroneous.
*370The Self-Defense Act does not authorize the use of unlimited force nor does it provide that persons who use more force than necessary should be immune from prosecution. The defendant’s criticism of the instruction given is without merit.