State v. Hofmann, 967 N.W.2d 435

On Jan 8, 2020, Tanya Hofmann completed a Nebraska handgun-purchase permit application that asked: “Are you under indictment or information in any court for a felony, or any other crime for which the judge could imprison you for more than one year? (An information is a formal accusation of a crime by a prosecutor. An indictment is from a grand jury.)” She circled “NO.”
Hofmann had been charged by complaint in Clay County in Oct. 2019 with possession of a controlled substance (a Class IV felony); the complaint was later bound over and an information filed in district court about one month after her application.
The sheriff’s office ran a background check based on her name/DOB, discovered the felony complaint, and denied the permit; Hofmann later called to ask to change her answer but was told the application could not be withdrawn.
Parties stipulated at a bench trial that Hofmann possessed the requisite intent for criminal attempt; the court found she willfully provided false information and committed a substantial step toward the offense (filling out, signing, paying for, and leaving the application).
Hofmann appealed, arguing (1) §69-2408 should be read as limited to falsehoods about the specific data items listed in §69-2404 (name, address, DOB, citizenship, etc.), and (2) answering “no” was not false because her county-court charge was a “complaint,” not an “information,” until bindover.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether §69-2408 (false information on a §69-2404 application) is limited to the specific data fields listed in §69-2404	State: §69-2408 criminalizes willfully providing false information "on an application form" approved under §69-2404, so it encompasses any false answer on that form, not only the named fields	Hofmann: §69-2404 lists the required fields; penal statutes must be strictly construed, so §69-2408 should reach only those listed items	Court: Rejected Hofmann. "Include" is non-exhaustive; §69-2408 applies to false statements on the approved application form generally, not only the §69-2404 fields
Whether answering “no” was false where Hofmann had a county-court complaint (not yet an information) at the time of the application	State: The application itself defined "information" as "a formal accusation of a crime by a prosecutor," a definition broad enough to encompass county complaints; under that definition Hofmann’s "no" was false and willful	Hofmann: Under statute and precedent, charges before preliminary hearing are complaints, not informations; the application asked about "information," so her answer was truthful	Court: Affirmed conviction. The approved application’s parenthetical definition of "information" encompassed complaints; a rational factfinder could find Hofmann understood the question and willfully lied (the court noted potential ambiguity but Hofmann had stipulated mens rea)

State v. Comacho, 309 Neb. 494, 960 N.W.2d 739 (2021) (cited regarding attempt/mens rea and review principles)
Vokal v. Nebraska Acct. & Disclosure Comm., 276 Neb. 988, 759 N.W.2d 75 (2009) (statutory construction principles)
State v. Jedlicka, 305 Neb. 52, 938 N.W.2d 854 (2020) (interpretation of statutory language such as "include")
In re Interest of Seth C., 307 Neb. 862, 951 N.W.2d 135 (2020) (usage of "include" as non-exhaustive)
State v. Boslau, 258 Neb. 39, 601 N.W.2d 769 (1999) (treatment of informations/complaints in speedy-trial context)
U.S. v. Strohm, 671 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2011) (discussing "fundamental" vs "arguable" ambiguity in false-statement prosecutions)
United States v. Lighte, 782 F.2d 367 (2d Cir. 1986) (ambiguity doctrines in perjury/false-statement contexts)