State v. Hofmann, 310 Neb. 609

Tanya Hofmann applied for a Nebraska handgun purchase certificate on January 8, 2020, and answered “No” to the question asking if she was “under indictment or information in any court for a felony… (An information is a formal accusation of a crime by a prosecutor).”
A sheriff’s office background check showed Hofmann had been charged by complaint in Clay County (Oct. 2019) with a Class IV felony; the complaint was later bound over and an information filed in district court about a month after her application.
Hofmann contacted the sheriff’s office the next day seeking to change or withdraw her application; the office declined because the background check had already been run and the application processed, and ultimately denied the certificate.
At a stipulated bench trial Hofmann conceded the mens rea element (stipulated intent) but contested legal sufficiency: (1) that §69-2408’s prohibition on providing “false information on an application form for a certificate under section 69-2404” is limited to the specific data items §69-2404 states the application “shall include”; and (2) that answering “No” was not false because her charge in county court was a “complaint,” not an “information.”
The district court found Hofmann willfully provided false information and committed an attempted violation (substantial step: submitting the completed application, signing, paying, and leaving it). The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §69-2408 criminalizes false answers only as to the specific data items §69-2404 says the application “shall include”	§69-2408 must be read with §69-2404; falsehoods are only actionable if they concern the enumerated fields (name, address, DOB, citizenship, etc.)	§69-2408 covers willful false information on the approved application form generally, not just the items §69-2404 mandates	Court: §69-2408 applies to false information on the approved application form as a whole; not limited to §69-2404’s enumerated items
Whether answering “No” was false where the prosecutor’s allegation was a county-court “complaint” (not an “information”) at the time of application	Because Nebraska treats pre-bindover county-court felony accusations as complaints, the application’s use of “information” did not encompass complaints; thus Hofmann’s “No” was not false	The approved application expressly defines “information” as “a formal accusation of a crime by a prosecutor,” which encompasses county-court complaints; under that definition Hofmann’s answer was false	Court: the application’s parenthetical definition of “information” encompasses complaints; Hofmann’s negative answer was false and, given the stipulated intent and substantial step, supports attempted false-information conviction

State v. Comacho, 309 Neb. 494, 960 N.W.2d 739 (addresses intent element in similar criminal-context stipulation)
Vokal v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 276 Neb. 988, 759 N.W.2d 75 (statutory-construction principles; harmonizing related statutory provisions)
In re Interest of Seth C., 307 Neb. 862, 951 N.W.2d 135 (interpretation note on statutory language such as “include”)
State v. Jedlicka, 305 Neb. 52, 938 N.W.2d 854 (another interpretive precedent on statutory language)
State v. Boslau, 258 Neb. 39, 601 N.W.2d 769 (treatment of informations and timing of speedy-trial considerations pre- and post-preliminary hearing)
U.S. v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir.) (federal framework for treating ambiguities in questions: fundamental vs. arguable ambiguity)
United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir.) (addresses ambiguous-question doctrines in false-statement prosecutions)