Court Opinion

ID: 9527629
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:32:03.835316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:59.152427
License: Public Domain

Grant, J.,
dissenting in part.
I agree that the facts presented to the trial judge in this jury-waived case are sufficient to prove that a burglary was committed and to convict defendant of that burglary, in that the *133victim positively identified defendant as the man she saw in the semidarkness of her dining room for “just a few seconds” and then identified 2 months later when she saw him on the streets of Bellevue and called the police. The victim also testified she had some further opportunity to identify defendant:
Q. [Defense counsel]. . . There was enough light in the apartment to see him?
A. I saw him more when he chased me out into the hallway.
Q. Was he still face to face with you at that time? .
A. Yes.
Q. Still didn’t notice anything about him?
A. I was too scared.
In connection with this further identification, it must be noted that the victim escaped from defendant by running quickly to the front door of the apartment, unlocking the door, taking the chain lock off, turning the knob, throwing the door open, and running across the hall, and that during this time while defendant was chasing the victim, he did not, according to the victim’s testimony, touch her at all. The positive identification evidence, however, if believed by the trier of fact, is legally sufficient to overcome defendant’s alibi evidence as presented to the trial court and as discussed in our opinion.
While I think we have stretched to the limit the holding of State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 812, 813-14, 305 N.W.2d 812, 814 (1981), that “ [i]t has long been the rule in this state that except in certain crimes such as sexual assault, a conviction may rest upon the testimony of a single eyewitness,” I believe the evidence is legally sufficient to support a conviction of the crime of burglary. I therefore join in the court’s affirmance of that conviction.
As I read the record, however, I do not think the evidence supports the conviction of robbery. When he was first seen by the victim, defendant had the victim’s billfold in his hands. The victim testified as follows:
Q. [Deputy county attorney] What did you see once you got out there?
A. Someone was standing at my kitchen table with my billfold and my money in their hands. The light came *134in from my patio door. There was an outside light in the apartment and it shined in my apartment. Someone was standing at my dining room table with my billfold in their hands.
Q. What was the person doing?
A. They had my billfold in their hands and they were taking money out of it.
Q. Did you discern that anything was missing from the apartment?
A. There was a ring that was taken out of my billfold.
Q. Okay. Did you ever discover that anything else was missing from the apartment —
A. No.
Q. — other than the ring?
A. No.
The testimony of the victim is clear that nothing was taken except her ring. In view of the immediate chase toward the door, the ring had to have been removed from the billfold before the victim first saw the defendant. Apparently, the victim’s appearance startled defendant and no money was removed from the apartment. The only property taken from the victim, therefore, was not taken from her through the use of force, violence, or intimidation. Any loss occurred before the victim was aware that a loss had occurred — a typical burglary. I do not believe the evidence supports a conviction of the crime of robbery. I would reverse defendant’s conviction of that crime.
I believe it should be noted that counsel representing defendant on this appeal did not try this case.