Court Opinion

ID: 9663738
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:49:31.347468+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:55.768580
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion herein for three reasons: (1) Misconduct of the prosecuting attorney; (2) prejudicial instruction on self-defense; and (3) the erroneous interpretation of section 83-1,105, R. S. Supp., 1972.
I am unable to agree with the majority that the use of a switchblade knife by the prosecuting attorney in giving the jury his idea of what occurred could scarcely have prejudiced the jury and was not error. A switchblade knife is a vicious instrument. Possibly some members of the jury would not appreciate its real character. No knife, and consequently no switchblade knife, had been offered in evidence nor would it have been admissible if it had been. The prosecuting attorney used one in his argument for only one purpose — to inflame the jury. I cannot help but feel that this conduct was much more flagrant than that in some of the cases in which we have reversed for misconduct of the prosecutor.
In its instructions the court gave the usual and a proper instruction on self-defense. In response to a question as to the meaning of “without just cause or excuse,” the court gave what is in my judgment a prejudicially er*722roneous instruction. The majority opinion states that the instruction, although not recommended, is not erroneous in context with NJI No. 14.33. The difficulty is that the jury is not composed of lawyers and judges who can draw the fine distinction drawn by the majority opinion. They will read the instruction in the light of what it apparently states. I specifically object to the following language: “In order to be entitled to assert self-defense as an excuse or justification for the killing, the defendant must have been in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm at the time of the commission of the act.” (Italics, supplied.) This is an incorrect statement. The defendant must have believed that he was in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. There is a vast distinction in the mind of the ordinary layman between these two statements. The court, in this instruction, reiterated, restated, and overemphasized the instruction on self-defense to such an extent as to raise a question in the minds of the jurors as to whether the defense was actually available. To me this is prejudicial error.
I also question the opinion’s interpretation of section 83-1,105, R. S. Supp., 1972. The only place I see a possibility of conflict with section 83-170, R. R. S. 1943, is where the minimum sentence imposed by the court is more than one-third of the maximum. Section 83-1,105, R. S. Supp., 1972, was adopted in 1972. It is the last word of the Legislature on the subject. Note, it starts off, “Except where a term of life is required by law, * * This indicates the section is applicable in every instance except where a life sentence is imposed. The word “maximum” must therefore be interpreted as it is defined in section 83-170, R. R. S. 1943. This would mean the maximum provided by law or imposed by the court, whichever is shorter. Consequently, even if the case were not reversed, the minimum would have to be reduced from 20 to 10 years.
McCown, J., joins in this dissent.
*723Clinton, J., joins in the portions of the dissent by Spencer, J., dealing with reasons (2) and (3).