Cowan v. State

• Citation: 2 N.W.2d 111,140 Neb. 837
• Decision Date: 30 January 1942
• Docket Number: 31173.
• Parties: COWAN v. STATE.
• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska

2 N.W.2d 111

140 Neb. 837

COWAN v. STATE.

No. 31173.

Supreme Court of Nebraska

January 30, 1942

Syllabus by the Court.

1. An information meets constitutional requirements if it describes a crime which the court has power to punish and alleges that it was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court, if it informs the accused of the nature of the charge against him, and if it constitutes a record which may be pleaded as a bar to a subsequent prosecution for the same offense.

2. The Criminal Code of this state does not require that detailed particulars of the crime be set forth in the information in the meticulous manner prescribed by the common law.

3. The statute prescribing a short form information for charging the crime of manslaughter (Comp.St.1929, sec. 29-1512) held constitutional, and an information drawn in the language of such statute held sufficient to properly charge the crime of manslaughter.

4. Evidence reviewed and held sufficient to sustain the conviction of the defendant on the charge of manslaughter.

E D. O'Sullivan, of Omaha, and William P. Welch and Marjorie E. Welch, both of Logan, Iowa, for plaintiff in error.

Walter R. Johnson, Atty. Gen., and Rush C. Clarke, Asst. Atty. Gen for defendant in error.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and ROSE, EBERLY, CARTER, MESSMORE, and YEAGER, JJ.

CARTER Justice.

Plaintiff in error was convicted of the crime of manslaughter and sentenced to serve one year in the penitentiary.

The information charged the crime in the following language "That the Floyd L. Cowan, then and there being, then and there on or about the 23rd day of April 1940, in said city, county and state, then and there being, did then and there one Ralph W. Sandell, then and there being, unlawfully and feloniously kill and slay." It is contended that this information is insufficient to sustain a conviction, for the reason that it does not apprise the accused of the nature and cause of the charge against him, and is therefore violative of sections 3, 10, 11, article 1, of the Constitution of the state of Nebraska.

The information was drawn in accordance with the provisions of section 29-1512, Comp.St.1929, which provides: "In any indictment for manslaughter, it shall not be necessary to set forth the manner in which, or the means by which, the death was caused; but it shall be sufficient to charge that the defendant did unlawfully kill and slay the deceased." The question is whether the information in the case at bar, charging the crime in accordance with and in the language of this statute, is sufficient to sustain the conviction. It is a question which does not appear to have been passed on previously by this court.

Constitutional provisions require that a defendant be convicted by due process of law, that he be charged in writing either by indictment or information, and that the accused shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of accusation and to have a copy thereof. This does not mean that detailed particulars of the crime must be stated in the information or indictment in the meticulous manner prescribed by the common law. The trend is in the direction of simplification of statement and the elimination of technical formalities. A proper administration of justice does not require our adherence to outmoded methods or the retention of legal fictions and absurdities. The legislature has the power to determine what constitutes a crime, and when it has performed this function it may likewise determine within constitutional limits what information must be included in the written charge to sufficiently advise the accused of the nature of the offense for which he must answer. Due process of law requires only that the accused be given sufficient notice of the nature of the charge against him in order that he may prepare a defense and plead the judgment as a bar to any subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The information in the instant case charges that on or about the 23d day of April, 1940, Floyd L. Cowan, in the county of Douglas and state of Nebraska, did then and there one Ralph W. Sandell unlawfully and feloniously kill and slay. Any person with a reasonable amount of intelligence would have no difficulty in knowing the nature and cause of the accusation against him. There is no sound argument against a simple and plain statement of the charge. Justice ought not to be sacrificed on the altar of formalism. While we are not willing to say, before the precise question is presented, that the simple words "A unlawfully killed B" are sufficient to charge the crime of manslaughter (see American Law Institute Code of Criminal Procedure, sec. 188), yet we are likewise unwilling to condemn it at this time, for the reason that natural progress under modern conditions may cause us to revise any views we may now have. The worship of form in charging a crime is fast giving way to considerations of content. Prolixity of language is likewise giving way to simplicity and terseness of statement. We do not intend to hamper this trend so long as constitutional requirements are met. See Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N.W. 333.

We have come to the conclusion that an indictment or information meets all constitutional requirements (1) if it shows that the acts which defendants is charged with committing amounted to a crime which the court had power to punish, and that it was committed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court (2) if it informs the defendant of the nature of the charge against...