13 N.W.2d 641 | Neb. | 1944
Information was filed in the district court for Douglas county charging William Maher and Tony Scavio with arson in the fourth degree. Upon application of William Maher, the plaintiff in error, he was granted a separate trial. Trial being had he was convicted thereof. In his petition in error, by which he brings his conviction to this court for review, he assigns a very large number of errors as grounds for reversal. For the purpose of this opinion, we will follow the rule as announced in Mason v. State, 132 Neb. 7, 270 N. W. 661: “Errors assigned but not argued will be considered as waived.”
For the purpose of this”opinion the plaintiff in error will be referred to as the defendant and the defendant in error as the state.
The first question presented by this appeal is whether or not the errors relied upon by the defendant are properly here for consideration. The defendant failed to assign in his petition in error that the lower court erred in overruling his motion for new trial. In Achenbach v. Pollock, 64 Neb. 436, 90 N. W. 304, we held: “A judgment will not be reversed for errors which are required to be assigned on a motion for a new trial, unless, it is alleged in the petition in error and shown by the record that the court erred in overruling such motion.” See, also, Gandy v. Cummins, 64 Neb. 312, 89 N. W. 777; James v. Higginbotham, 60 Neb. 203, 82 N. W. 625. In Waxham v. Fink, 86 Neb. 180, 125 N. W. 145, we stated: “Under the former practice it was held, perhaps not necessarily, that the petition in error in this court must contain the assignment that ‘the court erred in overruling the motion for a new trial.’ ” In many of the decisions- the reason for this rule is based upon the theory of waiver. This would seem to have little merit for by the ap
The defendant further contends that section 28-5,101, Comp. St. Supp. 1941, is unconstitutional and therefore void. The basis of this contention is that the act contains more than one subject, that the subject is not clearly expressed in the title, and that it lacks certainty and clearness. Section 14, art. Ill of our Constitution provides in part: “No bill shall contain more than one subject, and the same shall be clearly expressed in the title.” The information under which the defendant was convicted of fourth degree arson is in the language of section 28-5,101, supra, which statute is as follows: “Any person who wilfully and maliciously attempts to set fire to or attempts to burn or to aid, counsel or procure the burning of any of the buildings or property mentioned in the foregoing sections, or who commits any act preliminary thereto, or in furtherance thereof, shall be guilty of arson in the fourth degree and upon conviction thereof be sentenced to the Penitentiary for not less than one nor more than two years or fined not
In the construction of this constitutional provision, we stated in Lennox v. Housing Authority of the City of Omaha, 137 Neb. 582, 290 N. W. 451: “The constitutional provision does not require that the title be a synopsis of the law. The purpose of the constitutional inhibition was to prevent surreptitious legislation by advising legislators of the nature of the measures they are called upon to support or oppose. If by a fair and reasonable construction the title calls attention to the subject-matter of the bill, it may be said that the object is expressed in the title.” And as stated in Pandolfo v. State, 120 Neb. 616, 234 N. W. 483: “The provisions of the Constitution relating to titles are to be ‘liberally construed, and so construed as to admit of the insertion in a legislative act of all provisions which, though not specifically expressed in the titles, are comprehended within the objects and purposes of the act as expressed in its title; and to admit all provisions which are germane, and not foreign, to the provisions of the act as expressed in its title.’ Affolder v. State, 51 Neb. 91.” And as further stat
We therefore come to the conclusion that a statute which relates to the various degrees of arson and attempts thereat, together with those who aid, counsel or procure the same to be done, including when the same is done to injure or defraud an insurer, is within the objects and purpose of the act and. germane thereto which is described in the title as “to define the crime of arson in its various degrees.”
The defendant further contends that the section under which he was convicted was unconstitutional for want of certainty and clearness. Citing from the act hereinbefore set forth the following: “or who commits any act preliminary thereto, or in furtherance thereof, shall be guilty of arson in the fourth degree,” the defendant contends the act spreads an all inclusive net for the feet of everybody, upon the chance that, while the innocent will surely be entangled in its meshes, some wrongdoer may also be caught. In a criminal statute what is lawful and what is unlawful should not be left to conjecture. The crime, and its elements, must be clearly expressed so that the ordinary person can intelligently choose, in advance, what course it is lawful for him to pursue.
In applying the foregoing rule in construing that part of the act of which the defendant complains as lacking certainty and clarity, we must construe it in relation to the entire section of which it is a part. The words “wilfully and maliciously” apply to those “who commit any acts preliminary thereto or in furtherance thereof.” The words “thereto” and “thereof” apply to “attempts to- set fire to or attempts to burn.” When the sentence of which defendant complains is read in relation to the entire act its meaning is certain and clear and we hold it to be constitutional.
The defendant complains of the court overruling his chai
Complaint is made because no jury list was made from the poll books and registrations, after the 1942 elections. Section 20-1629, Comp. St. Supp. 1941, provides in part: “The list as thus revised shall constitute the list from which petit jurors shall.be selected, until such list shall have been exhausted in the manner hereinafter set forth.” There is no showing that the jury list created by the drawing of a key number on June 3, 1941, at 11:00 a. m., was. exhausted and until that happens or the list is quashed, no new jury list could be made by the drawing of a new number which would affect the poll books and registration of the 1942 election.
We have carefully examined all of the acts done by the officers in pursuance of their duties under these statutes as disclosed by the record and find them to be in proper order and, as we have previously stated, in the absence of showing to the contrary, we will presume that the officers charged with the duty of selecting and impaneling the jury have faithfully performed their duty according to law.
The defendant further complains that he was not properly arraigned as by statute provided under the rule as announced in Barker v. State, 54 Neb. 53, 74 N. W. 427; Browning v. State, 54 Neb. 203, 74 N. W. 631; and Bur
There is a further reason why this contention is without merit. Journal 416 on page 117 of the court’s journal shows the following to have happened in open court as of March 9, 1943: “Thereupon defendant William Maher is duly arraigned and stands mute and refuses to plead and the court enters a plea of not guilty as to Count 1 and a plea
The defendant complains because of the court’s refusal to grant him a continuance. As stated in Cornell v. State, 138 Neb. 708, 294 N. W. 851: “ ‘An application for a continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and its ruling- thereon will not be held erroneous, unless an abuse of discretion is disclosed by the record.’ Kerr v. State, 63 Neb. 115, 88 N. W. 240.” And in Flannigan v. State, 127 Neb. 640, 256 N. W. 321: “It is no abuse of discretion for the trial court to refuse defendant a continuance unless it clearly appears that defendant suffered prejudice.”
Defendant’s counsel complained of the state of his health and urged a continuance because thereof. The record discloses that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying a continuance in this respect. While the court was at all times solicitous of counsel’s welfare, it appears from the record that counsel was at all times vigorously active in behalf of his client and that during the entire trial fully protected his interests.
The defendant further complains of the fact that certain witnesses which he desired to be present were in the armed forces of their country and therefore not available. He offered evidence establishing this fact. An analysis discloses that these witnesses are friends and associates of the defendant. He spent the evening of February 24, 1942, with several of them prior to. his going to the Red Rooster Cafe at 3011 St. Mary’s avenue at about 12:30 a. m. of February 25. No question is raised as to. his whereabouts prior to his going to the cafe nor is it material for by his own testimony he admitted staying there until the time of his being taken into custody.
Raymond C. Agosta, who operated the Red Rooster Cafe and to whom the defendant testifies he delivered the cans on the evening of February 24, 1942, at about 8:30 p. m. at the cafe, died on the morning of the first day of the trial. Defendant further testified Agosta, at the time he delivered the cans, asked him to come out and help Tony Scavio take care of the place and that is the reason he went to the cafe later in the evening. This testimony is likewise only corroborative, but it is also testimony that cannot be produced at any subsequent date.
The testimony of these witnesses is not to material matters in the case and only corroborative. It can hardly be conceived that every witness a defendant may desire will be available at any one time. We have given this matter careful consideration and while the court should endeavor to fix a time for trial when the witnesses of both the defendant and state can be present, we do. not find that any of the testimony was as to such a material matter that the defendant was thereby prevented from having a fair trial and we find that the trial court in no way abused its discretion in denying a continuance.
The defendant complains that he was not given a speedy trial as by our state and federal Constitutions guaranteed to every person charged with the commission of a crime. In support of this contention he cites- the fact that many witnesses that would have been available if a speedy trial-had been granted are now in the armed services or dead
“No general principle fixes the exact time within which a trial must be had to satisfy the requirement of a speedy trial. The right to a speedy trial is necessarily relative; * * * 22 C. J. S. 713, 715, sec. 467. As stated in Critser v. State, 87 Neb. 727, 127 N. W. 1073: “There is room for the exercise of sound discretion on the part of the trial court, always bearing in mind that the right to a speedy trial is the constitutional right of any citizen who is accused of crime.” The legislature of our state has interpreted the Constitution on the matter of a speedy trial by fixing what, in certain cases and under certain conditions, is to be regarded as a maximum time within which a defendant must be tried. The interpretation of this constitutional provision is for the court, but since the time fixed by the legislature is not unreasonable, we adopt it as our own. The defendant, having failed to bring himself within the provisions thereof, is not entitled to be discharged under its terms. But the legislature has not undertaken to fix any minimum time in such matters. What is a fair and reasonable time in each particular case is always in the discretion of the court. No hard and fast rule can be applied in all cases. Under the facts in this case we find that the defendant had a speedy trial within the constitutional.provision.
The record shows that the defendant was arrested on February 25, 1942; that complaint was filed in the municipal court on February 27, 1942; that preliminary hearing was commenced on March 5, 1942, and continued until March 13, 1942,. when defendant was bound over to the district court where information was filed on March 17, 1942. The statute with reference to. the time within which a preliminary hearing must be had in cases of extra jurisdictional offenses is set forth in section 29-504, Comp. St. 1929, which in part provides as follows: “That when the complaint if (is) for a felony, * * * upon the accused being brought before the magistrate he shall proceed as soon as may be, in presence of the accused, to inquire into the com
The defendant further complains that the court erred in refusing to give certain instructions which had the effect of submitting to the jury the question of whether or not the defendant had a speedy trial as by the Constitution provided. In this we think the trial court was right. The question of whether or not a defendant has had a speedy trial under the provisions of our state and federal Constitutions is always a matter of judicial determination by the court and not one of fact for the jury. 22 C. J. S. 713, 715, sec. 467; Critser v. State, supra; State v. Simpson, 125 Wash. 665, 216 Pac. 874; Reed v. State, 94 Fla. 32, 113 So. 630; People v. Romero, 13 Cal. App. 2d 667, 57 Pac. 2d 557; Shafer v. State, 43 Ohio App. 493, 183 N. E. 774.
With reference to the defendant’s contention that the trial judge, not being a judge of the Fourth Judicial District in which Douglas county is located, was without jurisdiction since no written request or order had ever been given by any judge of the Fourth Judicial District or by order of the supreme court, we find it to be without merit. The record discloses that one of the judges of the Fourth Judicial District had asked the trial judge, who is a district judge of this state, to try this case. Our statute, section 27-303, Comp. St. Supp. 1941, does not require that such request be in writing.
Evidence offered by the state shows that Raymond C. Agosta owned the fixtures and operated a restaurant and beer business at 3011 St. Mary’s avenue, Omaha, Douglas county, Nebraska, known as the Red Rooster Cafe. His wife, Rosie, was a sister of Tony, Lawrence, and Mike Scavio who will be referred to herein. Agosta had been trying to sell the business but had been unsuccessful in doing so. He had removed or changed some of the equipment in the restaurant. On January 15, 1942, he purchased fire insurance on the contents in the sum of $1,300. There was very little stock in the place on February 24, 1942.
On the afternoon of February 24, 1942, the defendant,' William Maher, rented a car from the Capitol Drive It Yourself Co. in Omaha, and went to the Continental Can Co. where he purchased two square five-gallon cans similar to the ones found at the cafe. Later that evening, or rather in the early morning of February 25 at about 2:30 a. m., Lickert and Elias, officers of the Omaha police force, stopped their cruiser car on St. Mary’s avenue just east of the cafe to assist a resident of the city who was asleep in his car. At that time the cafe was closed. They awakened him and finding his condition such that he was not able to drive took him to his home. It might be mentioned that a heavy snow had fallen and generally the sides of the streets were blocked with snow and only the lanes for traffic were open. The car in which the resident was asleep was in the traffic lane on St. Mary’s avenue just east of the cafe.
After taking this party home the officers, some time between 3:30' and 4:00 a. m., while driving down St. Mary’s avenue, noticed that all of the lights in the cafe were out and the door was slightly open. They stopped their car and officer Lickert immediately went to the front door and officer Elias flashed the spot light on the cafe and started to go to the back door but changed his mind and likewise came
It might be well to mention here that the cafe fronts north on St. Mary’s avenue and is not exactly rectangular because of the diagonal direction of the avenue. The inside of the building is partitioned into two rooms, the front room being larger than the back with two doors in the partition. The one door is on the east and just back of the bar and restaurant counter located in the east part of the front room. The other is in the west part of the partition just back of the booths located in the west part of the front room. The transom above the street door was open.
When officers Lickert and Elias entered the room, Tony Scavio, who. was also in the building, had on his overcoat and hat and the defendant had on his. hat and his overcoat and was near the door lying over a cigarette machine. Just to the left of the door and between the counter and juice box, which was just to the left as you entered, was a five-gallon can, similar to the ones the defendant had purchased the previous afternoon, with the lid off and containing a small amount of g'asoline. Gasoline was generally distributed over the bar and lunch counter, the floor, on top of and under the seats of the booths, and on the equipment back of the counter. Such things about the place as napkins, napkin holders, newspapers, rags and other miscellaneous items were soaked with gasoline. Standing in the open doorway of the west partition door was another can, similar to the ones the defendant had purchased the previous afternoon, full of gasoline and with the lid removed. Neither lid of these two cans was found at the cafe. While the officers were there the defendant said he thought the gas was on and went back of the counter and apparently closed the j ets
Without being searched, the defendant and Scavio were both taken to police headquarters in the car of officers Lickert and Elias. The defendant rode in the front seat on the right-hand side and Scavio in the back seat on the right-hand side and they both got out on that side at the police station. Some five or ten minutes thereafter one of the officers discovered, near the right front fender of this car, two caps, similar to those used on cans such as they found at the cafe, also, a pair of gloves soaked with gasoline. Upon being searched they found the key of the cafe in the defendant’s shoe. The car the defendant had rented was found parked on 30th street just south of St. Mary’s avenue. On the floor mat in front of the back seat were found heavy square indentation marks, the same as would be made by the cans found in the cafe, and some oily substance was on the mat around the marks.
Evidence was offered by the defendant to show that the removal and exchange of fixtures were done prior to the purchase of the insurance. Defendant admits that he purchased the two cans but states “that he purchased the same for Lawrence Scavio who had asked him to do so several days prior to February 24, 1942. That Lawrence wanted him to leave them at the cafe in order that he might have them filled with gasoline as he was going to drive a car from Chicago' to the west coast and wanted to pick up some extra gasoline. Defendant testified he took the empty cans out to the cafe around 8:30 p. m. of the evening of the 24th and gave them to Raymond C. Agosta. While there Agosta told him that Tony Scavio was going to take care of the cafe that evening and he would like to have him come out and help him. He told Agosta that he was busy the early part of the evening but if he could he would come out later. That he returned later that evening sometime between 12:30 and 1:00 a. m. of the 25th. Upon arriving at the cafe
This is necessarily an abbreviated statement of the facts contained in a lengthy bill of exceptions but fairly presents the events that transpired during the course of February 24 and the early morning of February 25, 1942, as disclosed by the evidence.
The evidence offered by the defendant conflicts with the state’s testimony and the testimony of the defendant himself on many material matters is contradictory, but, of course, the weight of conflicting and contradictory evidence
As stated in 6 C. J. S. 759, sec. 38: “It is recognized by the courts that, because of their very nature, arson or related crimes of illegal burning can seldom be established by direct and positive testimony of witnesses who actually saw the fire set, and, accordingly, a conviction may be had on circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances relied upon must be clearly and unequivocally proved, and be consistent with each other and with the hypothesis that accused is guilty, and inconsistent with the hypothesis that he is innocent and with every other rational hypothesis except that of guilt.”
“To sustain a conviction for a crime the corpus delicti must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.” Chezem v. State, 56 Neb. 496, 76 N. W. 1056. See, also, McCue v. State, 112 Neb. 9, 198 N. W. 163; Andersen v. State, 141 Neb. 306, 3 N. W. 2d 447. The corpus delicti may be proved by circumstantial evidence. Andersen v. State, supra. This is true in arson cases. Salistean v. State, 115 Neb. 838, 215 N. W. 107; Robino v. State, 133 Neb. 391, 275 N. W. 463; State v. Goldman, 166 Minn. 292, 207 N. W. 627. Circumstantial evidence alone may sufficiently establish the corpus delicti and the guilt of the accused. As stated in Morgan v. State, 51 Neb. 672, 71 N. W. 788: “The test by which to determine the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence in a criminal prosecution, is whether the facts and circumstances tending to connect the accused with the crime charged are of such conclusive nature as to exclude to a moral certainty every rational hypothesis except that of his guilt.” See, also, Dreessen v. State, 38 Neb. 375, 56 N. W. 1024; Robino v. State, supra. An instruction was given submitting the question of the sufficiency of the evidence under the circumstantial evidence rule and the jury found the defendant guilty of' the crime as charged in count one of the information and from an examination of the evidence as a whole we cannot say that the jury were wrong. The evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.
The defendant complains that the sentence of two years is excessive. With this we cannot agree. The statute under which defendant was convicted provides for a penalty of a fine up to $1,000 or a sentence of not less than one nor more than two years in the penitentiary. Comp. St. Supp. 1941, sec. 28-5,101. After the defendant was convicted, the trial judge sought information as to his character and reputation in the community where he lived for the purpose of assisting him to determine the proper sentence to impose. This is criticized by the defendant and assigned as reversible error. The sentence to be imposed is largely a
The defendant contends the court erred by imposing sentence upon defendant without making a written entry of the order overruling his motion for new trial. The record discloses that the trial judge, prior to sentencing the defendant, overruled his motion for new trial. This is set out in the journal signed by him-. As stated in Brown v. Ritner, 41 Neb. 52, 59 N. W. 360: “The approved journal entry of a judgment is indisputable evidence of what the judgment was.” “A judgment of a court is valid and effective when it is declared and announced by the judge, although it may not be reduced to writing until afterwards.” State v, Warrick, 106 Neb. 750, 184 N. W. 896. See, also, Luikart v. Bredthauer, 132 Neb. 62, 271 N. W. 165. This contention of the defendant is without merit.
The defendant refers to the duty of the trial judge, as announced in Bourne v. State, supra, that it is the duty of the court to endeavor to surround the trial with an atmosphere of fairness, undisturbed by prejudice, passion, or ill-will, and with this we fully agree. An examination of the record discloses that the trial judge did endeavor to do just that and we think very successfully. It appears from the entire record that the defendant had a fair trial and that no errors occurred that entitle him to have his conviction vacated or set aside and it is therefore affirmed.
Affirmed.