Court Opinion

ID: 9577201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:32:51.14539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:20:06.836326
License: Public Domain

Newton, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent. Section 29-2261, R. S. Supp., 1972, directs that a presentence investigation be made prior to imposition of sentence on a felony conviction. Although unnecessary in many cases where the court has before it the record of previous felony convictions, I have no quarrel with the procedure prescribed.
The record indicates that defendant participated in the killing of Leonard Scheer. The deceased was hit over the head with a bottle, run over with a car and eight ribs crushed, and left on a wintry road to die of exposure and the injuries inflicted. It is obviously a case of first-degree murder yet the defendant was permitted to escape with a plea of guilty to manslaughter and received a sentence of 10 years.
The presentence report apparently was not completed at the time of defendant’s plea of guilty to manslaughter and sentence. The record indicates that both the defendant and his attorney were then cognizant of this fact but informed the court that they were ready to proceed. The presentence report itself fails to reveal any extenuating circumstances other than that defendant had lost a leg at some time in the past and was involved with drugs, factors of which the court was apprised prior to sentence. The report, in this in*42stance, could not .possibly have brought about a lighter or different sentence. It was error without prejudice.
■ Section 29-2261, R. S. Supp., 1972, must, as are other laws, be administered in the light of section 29-2308, R. R. S. 1943, which forbids reversal when no substantial miscarriage of justice has occurred. As this court has frequently said, error may creep into proceedings in criminal prosecutions but it is only error prejudicial to the accused that justifies reversal. See, Texter v. State, 170 Neb. 426, 102 N. W. 2d 655; Franz v. State, 156 Neb. 587, 57 N. W. 2d 139.