Court Opinion

ID: 9742070
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:06:04.913227+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:28.120929
License: Public Domain

Wright, Judge, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the decision of the majority, which concludes that the pecuniary loss instruction constituted plain error requiring the court to reverse the jury’s finding regarding the extent of pecuniary loss resulting from this crime.
The jury found the defendant guilty of criminal mischief, with the property damage having a pecuniary loss value of $1,147. In the present case, the trial court gave the following instruction as to pecuniary loss: “ ‘Pecuniary loss’ means loss *105in the form of money, property, commercial interest or anything else, the primary significance of which is economic loss.” This same instruction was given in State v. Pierce, 231 Neb. 966, 439 N.W.2d 435 (1989).
In Pierce, the Supreme Court held that such an instruction was incomplete and misleading, constituting prejudicial error which permitted the jury to speculate about various losses, including the loss of a commercial interest or anything else which involved economic loss. The court stated that the term “pecuniary loss” means “monetary loss suffered by another as the result of the defendant’s conduct which constitutes criminal mischief under § 28-519.” Pierce, 231 Neb. at 975, 439 N.W.2d at 442. The court in Pierce concluded that although there was significant evidence to sustain a finding of fact necessary for the imposition of the felony punishment, the instruction for pecuniary loss required setting aside the jury’s findings concerning the extent of pecuniary loss.
As I review the record, the jury could not have been misled by the instruction given in the present case. The jury may have been able to speculate in Pierce concerning various losses, including a commercial interest or anything else which involved an economic loss and therefore may have been misled.
Here, there is no doubt as to what the pecuniary loss was in connection with the crime charged. The evidence of the damage caused by the defendant in the Lancaster County jail included the following costs for replacement and repair: $138 for a security shelf, $36 for labor to replace the shelf, $45 for a stainless steel mirror, $144 for labor to replace the mirror, $50 for caulking the mirror, $150 for replacing concrete blocks, $100 for painting, $318 for a light fixture, $50 for caulking the light fixture, and $116 for labor to install the light fixture. These costs total $1,147. The jury assessed the value of the pecuniary loss at $ 1,147.
The defendant did not consider the instruction prejudicial, and I have no doubt that the defendant was not prejudiced by this instruction. I would affirm the judgment and the sentence of the district court.