State v. Bol
845 N.W.2d 606
Neb. Ct. App.2014Background
- Bol appeals his criminal impersonation conviction and sentence after being questioned by Lincoln police on three occasions; on Feb. 12, 2012, an officer found a vehicle and identified a registered owner as Yai Bol, locating a Daniel Matit citation in the car; on Mar. 5, 2012, another officer identified Bol as the driver and linked him to a Daniel Matit ID; on May 7, 2012, Bol gave a different name and birthdate to another officer who identified him in photos; Bol provided two names, two birthdates, and two addresses across encounters; evidence showed Bol provided false information and the State convicted him of criminal impersonation under § 28-638(1)(c) with a 1-year sentence, which Bol challenges as insufficient and excessive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence supports knowledge that Bol provided false information | Bol (State) argues materials show plausible truth; no proof of knowing falsehood | Bol contends differences could be truthful or accidental and not knowingly false | Evidence sufficient; reasonable jurors could find knowledge of falsity |
| Whether Bol knowingly provided false personal identifying information | Two names and two birthdates show inconsistency indicating false info | Discrepancies may reflect a lack of a single true identity rather than falsity | Jury could find Bol knowingly provided false information (two dates of birth cannot both be true) |
| Whether the sentence was within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion | Imprisonment beyond necessary risked excessive punishment given history | Court properly weighed factors; substantial history justifies sentence | Sentence within statutory limits and not an abuse of discretion |
| Whether criminal impersonation was the proper charge given the conduct | Statute permits false identification to police; conduct fits statute | May have alternatively fit false reporting under § 28-907 | Statutes permit criminal impersonation; proper charge based on facts |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 403 (Neb. 2001) (sufficiency review: rational jury could convict beyond reasonable doubt)
- State v. Sidzyik, 281 Neb. 305 (Neb. 2011) (abuse of discretion standard for sentencing)
- State v. Parminter, 283 Neb. 754 (Neb. 2012) (scope of appellate review for sentencing decisions)