Court Opinion

ID: 9669557
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:59:53.068778+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:58.015436
License: Public Domain

Fahrnbruch, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority opinion, but write separately to respond to the dissent. The dissenting opinion contends that an information which omits a necessary element of the crime charged does not necessitate a new trial in this case because Randall’s guilty plea was counseled and voluntary.
We have held that the failure of an information to state a crime may be raised at any time. Nelson v. State, 167 Neb. 575, 94 N.W.2d 1 (1959). If an information for second degree murder does not include the element of malice, the defendant has not been charged with a crime. State v. Lowe, 248 Neb. 215, 533 N.W.2d 99 (1995); State v. Plant, 248 Neb. 52, 532 N.W.2d 619 (1995). Thus, the defect in the charging document against Randall is not a matter of mere form. Rather, the information to which Randall pled guilty does not, on its face, charge him with a crime. An information so defective that it omits an essential element of the crime itself so as to charge no crime at all is fatally defective of such a fundamental character as to make the indictment or information wholly invalid and not subject to waiver by the accused. See In re Interest of Durand. State v. Durand, 206 Neb. 415, 293 N.W.2d 383 (1980). That Randall pled guilty to a fatally defective information does not lessen the constitutional deprivation of his being convicted and sentenced on an information that does not charge him with a crime.