State v. Godek
981 N.W.2d 810
Neb.2022Background
- In August 2020, James T. Godek placed multiple phone calls from Council Bluffs, Iowa, to his sisters at a business in Bellevue, Sarpy County, Nebraska, making threats (including threats to kill).
- One call was recorded by a sister; 911 was contacted and Bellevue police responded; an officer ultimately spoke with Godek by phone and arranged an arrest warrant in Sarpy County.
- The State charged Godek with terroristic threats under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.01 (Class IIIA felony).
- Godek moved to quash, arguing Nebraska lacked territorial jurisdiction and venue because he uttered the threats in Iowa; the court denied the motion, concluding receipt in Sarpy County satisfied an essential element.
- A jury convicted Godek; he moved unsuccessfully for directed verdict, mistrial, and new trial, then appealed arguing the statute does not require a recipient and therefore Nebraska lacked jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the term "threaten" in § 28-311.01 requires communication to a recipient | "Threaten" implies a communicated intent; statute requires intent to terrorize "another," so a recipient is an element | Statute's text does not say the threat must be communicated or received; "another" refers only to mens rea | Court held "threaten" requires communication to a listener/recipient; "another" means the person who receives the threat |
| Territorial jurisdiction: can Nebraska prosecute when defendant was physically in Iowa? | Jurisdiction exists if an essential element of the offense occurred in Nebraska; receipt by Nebraska-based recipients satisfies that | All acts occurred in Iowa, so Nebraska lacks territorial jurisdiction and venue is improper | Court held territorial jurisdiction and venue proper because an essential element (receipt) occurred in Sarpy County |
| Jury instruction and prosecutor's closing (that recipient is an element) | Instruction correctly stated elements (including that at least one element occurred in Sarpy County); prosecutor's statement accurate | Instruction and closing argument misstated law by adding recipient as element; requested curative instruction/mistrial | Court rejected Godek's challenge because recipient is an element; no reversible error |
| Sufficiency of evidence / posttrial motions (directed verdict, new trial) | Evidence (recorded call, witness testimony, officer contact) proved element of receipt in Sarpy County beyond reasonable doubt | Evidence insufficient because offense allegedly occurred in Iowa and statute lacks recipient element | Court found evidence sufficient; denied motions and affirmed conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Smith, 267 Neb. 917, 678 N.W.2d 733 (2004) (interpreting § 28-311.01 and treating the statute's "intent to terrorize another" as referring to the person who receives the threat)
- State v. Hamilton, 215 Neb. 694, 340 N.W.2d 397 (1983) (addressing vagueness of prior terroristic-threats statute and asking whether threats must be heard by an intended victim)
- State v. Schmailzl, 243 Neb. 734, 502 N.W.2d 463 (1993) (treating "threaten" as a term of common usage in the terroristic-threats context)
- State v. Red Kettle, 239 Neb. 317, 476 N.W.2d 220 (1991) (venue and jurisdiction precedents referenced regarding elements occurring in state)