Court Opinion

ID: 9730150
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:02:38.886366+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:04.502851
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I regret that I must respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in this case. While I concede that the language of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-514 (Reissue 1979) is not a model of legislative draftsmanship, nevertheless, I believe that it is sufficiently clear and that the Legislature has, indeed, provided a penalty for a violation of § 28-514. Theft other than of property lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake, having a value of $100 or less, is, under the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518(4) (Cum. Supp. 1982), a Class II misdemeanor. Section 28-514 provides in part: “Any person violating the provisions of this section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by the penalty prescribed in the next lower classification below the value of the item lost, mislaid, or delivered under a mistake pursuant to section 28-518.” It seems fairly clear to me that § 28-514 provides that if you steal lost, mislaid, or mistakenly delivered property having a value of $100 or less and would be guilty of a Class II misdemeanor but for the fact that you stole property which was lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake, you are guilty of a Class III misdemeanor, pursuant to the provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-106(1) (Cum. Supp. 1982), which defines the various penalties for the classes of misdemeanors. Obviously, one cannot ever steal property having a value of less than zero. It occurs to me that the legislative history, as expressed by the majority, simply supports that view. It also occurs to me that the reason we have had to rely upon plain error is because the statute was not nearly as confusing to counsel, who did not argue the point, as it is to the court. I would have affirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed.