Court Opinion

ID: 9713451
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:15:38.357493+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:18.875939
License: Public Domain

Boslaugh, J.,
dissenting.
As the Attorney General’s brief in this case stated, it is difficult to conceive how one could commit murder in the second degree or attempt to commit murder in the second degree by shooting the victim in the stomach and not attempt to cause serious bodily harm. “Cessation of life may be fairly characterized as the most serious of bodily injuries.” (Brief for Appellee at 8.)
Unfortunately, the majority opinion abandons the rule which has been followed in this state for many years and adopts a rule from another state which vacates the conviction and forces the State to retry the defendant for a crime of which he is guilty and has already been convicted.
The majority opinion relies on the following quotation from State v. Colgrove, 197 Neb. 375, 376-77, 248 N.W.2d 780, 781 (1977): “A lesser included offense is one which is necessarily established by proof of the greater offense. Fuller v. United States, 407 F.2d 1199. To be a lesser included offense, the elements of the lesser offense must be such that it is impossible to commit the greater without at the same time having committed the lesser. Certain v. State, 261 Ind. 101, 300 N.E.2d 345. In sum the lesser included offense is one all the elements of which are necessarily included in the greater. See, State v. Jones, 186 Neb. 303, 183 N.W.2d 235; State v. McClarity, 180 *362Neb. 246, 142 N.W.2d 152.” (Emphasis supplied.) The statement of the rule is correct. The difficulty is that the rule is misunderstood and is incorrectly applied in this case.
The correct interpretation of the rule is demonstrated by the following quotation from Alyea v. State, 62 Neb. 143, 86 N.W. 1066 (1901), in which the defendant was charged with assault with intent to inflict great bodily injury. We said: “It is next urged that the crime of assault and battery, of which the defendant was convicted, is not embraced or inclhded in the offense charged in the information. This, we think, is true. The information alleges an assault, but not a battery. If the latter had been averred in the information, the charge would have been sufficiently broad to have sustained a conviction for an assault and battery. Mulloy v. State, 58 Nebr., 204. But as the information contains no averment of a battery, the conviction can not stand. Turner v. Muskegon, 50 N.W. Rep. (Mich.), 310.” Id. at 144, 86 N.W. at 1067.
The Alyea case demonstrates that it is the allegations in the information and the proof offered in support of the information which determines whether the lesser offense is included in the greater. It is the particular offense committed by the defendant that is controlling.
In State v. McClarity, 180 Neb. 246, 142 N.W.2d 152 (1966), one of the cases relied on in State v. Col-grove, supra, we held that assault with intent to commit robbery was a lesser-included offense within a charge of robbery because the proof showed that the offense had been committed by force and violence. We said: “When some of the elements of the crime charged in the information, without the addition of any element irrelevant to the original crime charged, may constitute another crime or crimes, such other crime or crimes are included within the crime charged. This court has held that the offense *363of larceny from the person is included within a charge of robbery, Bunge v. State, 87 Neb. 557, 127 N.W. 899, Brown v. State, 33 Neb. 354, 50 N.W. 154, on rehearing, 34 Neb. 448, 51 N.W. 1028; that assault and battery is included within a charge of shooting with intent to wound, Moore v. State, 147 Neb. 390, 23 N.W.2d 552; and that assault and battery is included within a charge of assault with intent to commit rape, McConnell v. State, 77 Neb. 773, 110 N.W. 666. In McConnell v. State, supra, it was stated: ‘ “* * * we are satisfied, that the general rule is, that, where a higher and more atrocious crime fully embraces all the ingredients of a lesser offense, and when the evidence requires it, the jury may convict of the latter.” ’ The refusal to instruct upon a lesser included offense after request by the defense has been held to constitute reversible error. Moore v. State, supra. In this case, both the crimes of assault with intent to commit robbery and assault and battery include only elements contained within the crime of robbery; such elements find support in the evidence ; and the trial court acted correctly in submitting both included offenses upon request.” Id. at 249, 142 N.W.2d at 154.
In State v. Jacobs, 192 Neb. 246, 219 N.W.2d 768 (1974), we reversed a conviction for robbery ‘‘forcibly and by violence” because the trial court had refused a request to submit assault and battery as a lesser-included offense. We specifically rejected the argument of the State, which is the substance of the majority opinion in this case. We said: “Unless this court elects to overrule it, this case is controlled by the case of State v. McClarity, 180 Neb. 246, 142 N.W.2d 152. That case specifically held that the crimes of assault with intent to commit robbery and assault and battery are included within a charge of robbery. We also held that when the defendant requests the trial court to submit a lesser included offense in the instructions, the trial court must submit *364all included offenses as to which the evidence is sufficient to support a verdict. Here the evidence of the defendant established the assault and battery, and the State’s evidence, if believed by the jury, was clearly sufficient to convict for the crime charged as well as the lesser included offenses. The refusal to instruct upon a lesser included offense, after request by the defense, is reversible error. [Emphasis supplied.]
“The State contends that although typically all necessary elements of assault and battery are embraced within an information for robbery, all the potential elements are not embraced within the information against the defendant. The argument has been rejected by this court and by the federal courts. See, Joyner v. United States, 320 F.2d 798 (D.C. Cir.); Crosby v. United States, 339 F.2d 743 (D.C. Cir.); 4 Wharton, Criminal Law and Procedure, § 1888, p. 754. The fact that the information specifically charged that the robbery was committed ‘forcibly and by violence’ destroys the State’s argument that robbery may potentially also be committed by ‘putting in fear.’ ” Id. at 248, 219 N.W.2d at 770.
Another case which discusses and applies the rule correctly is State v. Knaff, 204 Neb. 712, 285 N.W.2d 115 (1979). There we held the trial court was not required to submit larceny from the person in a robbery case because the proof did not require it. We said: “During the early morning hours of August 19, 1978, Stephen Fiero was sleeping in his bedroom while still fully clothed. He felt someone touching him, but thought it was a friend telling him he was there. He then felt someone trying to get into his back pocket. He raised up and saw two black males, one standing in the doorway and the other at the foot of his bed. The one near the bed had what looked like a large dowel stick or metal rod about 3 feet in length in his hand, and the other appeared to *365be grasping a revolver or pistol in both of his hands, pointing at the victim. Immediately realizing they were attempting to take his billfold, and believing if he resisted he would be shot or clubbed, he lay back down and pretended to be asleep. He felt his billfold being taken from his pocket by one of the men and, upon hearing them leave, got up and called the police. Mr. Fiero was unable to recognize either of the men, and the identity of the defendant and his presence at the scene were established by fingerprints and other evidence. The defense offered no evidence and no one else testified concerning the facts of the actual taking.
“It is on the basis of the foregoing evidence that defendant insists he was entitled to an instruction on the lesser-included crime of larceny from the person. The elements of robbery are the forcible taking of property from the person of another by violence or putting in fear, section 28-414, R.R.S. 1943, whereas larceny from the person requires the taking of property from another without putting such person in fear by threats or the use of force and violence, section 28-505, R.R.S. 1943. There is no question, of course, but that larceny from the person is a lesser-included offense of robbery, as the former crime ‘is one which is fully embraced in the higher offense.’ State v. Tamburano, 201 Neb. 703, 271 N.W.2d 472 (1978).
“The only evidence presented to the jury was that the victim was awake, saw a club and what he believed to be a gun, and permitted his property to be taken because he was afraid of injury to his person. It is only in those cases where, under a different but reasonable view, the evidence is sufficient to establish guilt of the lesser offense and also leave a reasonable doubt as to some particular element included in the greater, but not the lesser, offense that the lesser-included offense instruction must be given. Where the evidence is uncontroverted on an essen*366tial element of the crime, mere speculation that the jury may disbelieve it does not entitle the defendant to such an instruction. State v. Tamburano, supra. The undisputed facts established in this case did not require the submission of a lesser-included offense instruction.” Id. at 713-14, 285 N.W.2d at 117.
In State v. Aby, 205 Neb. 267, 287 N.W.2d 68 (1980), the defendant was convicted of both first degree sexual assault and felony debauching of a minor. We reversed the conviction of the second offense charged because it was a lesser offense included within the greater offense, the sexual assault charge. We said: “A lesser-included offense is one which includes some of the elements of the crime charged without the addition of any element irrelevant to the crime charged. State v. Comer, 199 Neb. 762, 261 N.W.2d 374. The evidence of the State which proved the first degree sexual assault in this case also proved felony debauching of a minor although the element of penetration was not an element of the debauching offense. Thus, under the evidence in this case, debauching of a minor was a lesser-included offense of the sexual charge.
“The State was not required to elect between the counts because a crime and a lesser-included offense may be charged in separate counts of the same information. See, Stapleman v. State, 150 Neb. 460, 34 N.W.2d 907; Longsine v. State, 105 Neb. 428, 181 N.W. 175.
“However, a defendant cannot be convicted of two degrees of the same offense or a crime and a lesser-included offense based upon the same act or transaction. In re Resler, 115 Neb. 335, 212 N.W. 765. A conviction or acquittal of the principal offense bars any prosecution or punishment for a lesser-included offense.
“For that reason the judgment on count II must be *367reversed and that count dismissed.” Id. at 269-70, 287 N.W.2d at 70.
Further citation of recent authority is unnecessary.
Hastings, J., joins in this dissent.