Court Opinion

ID: 9676413
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:24:03.290288+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.502197
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
Today, the majority holds that harmless error occurred during a bench trial of a criminal case when the trial court took judicial notice of venue.
Today’s holding conflicts with our holding in State v. Bouwens, 167 Neb. 244, 92 N.W.2d 564 (1958). In Bouwens, this court affirmed the decision of the district court which dismissed a complaint against the defendant for disturbing the peace. While noting that “[i]t is fundamental that venue must be proven as any other essential fact,” id. at 246, 92 N.W.2d at 566, the court held that the mere reference to streets and addresses in an unnamed city, standing alone, will not be deemed sufficient evidence for the court to take judicial notice of venue.
Second, as I first noted in my dissent in State v. Foster, 230 Neb. 607, 433 N.W.2d 167 (1988), today’s holding is another step in the continuing process of making the trial court an active participant in criminal proceedings. Again, I submit that this active participation offends notions of fairness and due process.