Court Opinion

ID: 9669977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:11:52.766035+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.454527
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
Section 28-401, R. S. Supp., 1973, provides: “Whoever shall * * * in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate any * * * robbery, * * * kill another; * * * shall be deemed guilty of murder in the first degree * *
The evidence, including the defendant’s own testimony, established the attempted robbery. However, the evidence failed to establish that the defendant had killed the decedent.
The doctor who performed the autopsy reported that there was nothing to indicate the decedent had died of other than natural causes. There was no evidence of any trauma, externally or internally or on X-ray examination. The doctor could not state with medical certainty the cause of death of the decedent. He could not state that the decedent drowned, but he did testify that the findings were not inconsistent with a patient *124who had died from drowning, even though there was no water in his lungs. The doctor testified that the findings were equally consistent with drowning, diabetic coma, and arteriosclerosis. The decedent was a known diabetic receiving insulin shots each morning. The time of death could not even be fixed within a period of several days. No one ever saw the decedent go into the river or saw him in the water except the defendant. The defendant’s testimony denied any act or acts which caused decedent’s death.
It might well be said that the evidence established that an attempted robbery occurred and that the victim of the attempted robbery died at some time within a few days thereafter, and that his death might have been connected with the attempted robbery. Only one of the three possible causes of death could be even remotely connected with the attempted robbery or with the defendant. On that evidence the defendant was convicted of first degree murder.
In Reyes v. State, 151 Neb. 636, 38 N. W. 2d 539, we said: “Homicide corpus delicti is not established until it is proved that a human being is dead, and the death occurred as the result of the criminal agency of another. * * The State “must prove that * * * death was the result of a criminal act, and unless and until this is proved, it is presumed that death resulted from innocent, noncriminal causes. * * * Any fact or circumstance susceptible of two interpretations must be resolved most favorably to the accused.”
While the State may show by circumstantial evidence that the cause of death was a criminal act of the d¿fendant, the facts and circumstances tending to connect accused with the crime charged must be of such a conclusive nature as to exclude every reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt of having killed the decedent in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of a robbery. State v. Sedlacek, 178 Neb. 322, 133 N. W. 2d 380.
Here the evidence is absolutely uncontradicted that *125■no human agency can determine what caused the decedent’s death. All three equally probable causes of death may be innocent and noncriminal. Only one of the three possible causes might be either criminal or innocent. Yet the jury was permitted to speculate that death was caused by a criminal act of the defendant. The •basis for that speculation rests on the fact that the defendant, one of a group of intoxicated persons, participated in an attempt to rob the decedent in an area near the Missouri River, and the decedent’s body was found in the river several days later. The State’s evidence indicated that the death might have resulted from drowning while fleeing from the defendant at the time of the attempted robbery.
“The burden of proving that a specific crime has been committed is not fulfilled by evidence that a crime probably occurred.” State v. Addison, 191 Neb. 792, 217 N. W. 2d 468. “Suspicion or speculation may never justify a conviction.” Reyes v. State, supra.
The evidence here does not support the conviction.