Geiger, In Interest of
| Decision Date | 18 July 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 37135,37135 |
| Citation | 184 Neb. 581,169 N.W.2d 431 |
| Parties | In the Interest of Danny GEIGER, a child under the age of eighteen years. Andrew J. McMULLEN, Appellee, v. Danny GEIGER, minor child, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. The review in the Supreme Court of a proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act is by trial de novo.
2. A child under the age of 18 years who deports himself so as to injure or endanger seriously the morals or health of himself or others is a child in need of special
supervision under the Juvenile Court Act.
Munro, Parker, Munro & Grossart, Kearney, for appellant.
Andrew J. McMullen, County Atty., Kearney, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C.J., and CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN and NEWTON, JJ.
This is a juvenile court proceeding. The appellant, Danny Geiger, was adjudicated to be a child in need of special supervision and placed on probation by the juvenile court of Buffalo County, Nebraska. The appellant's motion for new trial was overruled and he has appealed. The principal assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the findings and order of the juvenile court, and the failure of the trial court to grant the defendant a jury trial.
A review in this court of a proceeding under the Juvenile Court Act is de novo upon the record. Doeschot v. Dahlberg, 184 Neb. 303, 167 N.W.2d 190.
The petition alleges in substance that on or about March 15, 1968, the appellant broke into and stole money from popcorn vending machines belonging to a vendor and located in three different business establishments in the city of Kearney, Nebraska.
The evidence shows that there were popcorn vending machines located at Emil's Frontier Station, Mel's Texaco Service Station, and Bob's Apco Service Station in Kearney and that Danny Geiger had gone to these places at about the time alleged in the petition. The popcorn machines take nickles and dimes. The evidence shows that these machines are operated under a franchise agreement with a vending machine company called Vendit. A 5-pound bag of popcorn is placed in the machine and will yield from 65 to 72 10-cent sacks of popcorn when either a dime or two nickels are inserted in the machine. The money trips a switch which has a counter on it and the machine then dispenses a measured amount of popcorn into a sack. The only way the popcorn can be taken from the machine other than by inserting money is to force the top or by opening the top of the machine with a key. A companion of Danny's testified that he and Danny went to Bob's Apco; that he had gone inside to get a bottle of pop, started back outside to sit down in the car, but stood at the door; and that he saw Danny 'get into the machine.' He testified that he saw Danny open the popcorn machine with a key and that Danny threw the key in the trash can at Bob's Apco. This same companion testified that he saw Danny around the popcorn machine at Emil's Frontier about a week before he threw the key away (at Bob's Apco). He testified that he went into Emil's Service with Danny; that there was conversation with him about whether the key would fit the machine; and that he, the companion, would go back out to the car and when Danny came back he sometimes gave him money. At Mel's Texaco the same companion testified that he sat in the car; that he did not see Danny actually get into the popcorn machine; but that he did observe him go in and see him around the popcorn machine. He testified that he saw him around the machine at Mel's Service Station about a week before Danny threw the key away. Another companion of Danny's testified that on or about the 15th of March he went with Danny to Mel's Texaco and Emil's Frontier in Kearney. He knew that Danny had a key for a popcorn machine. He waited in the car at Mel's Texaco while Danny went into the station and saw him get two packs of potato chips and sit down at a table and eat one pack. When Danny came out they left in the car and after they left Mel's Texaco Danny gave him 30 cents in the form of two nickels and two dimes.
The evidence shows that Danny was employed at the Landmark Cafe in Kearney, Nebraska; and that the particular key in question, No. HN 2, was reported missing to the vending machine operator by the manager of the Landmark Cafe on approximately July 15, 1967. The vending...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Keiver v. Pennsylvania In re Barbara Burrus et al., Petitioners
... ... So much depends on the availability of resources, on the interest and commitment of the public, on willingness to learn, and on understanding as to cause and effect and cure. In this field, as in so many others, one ... Turner, 253 Or. 235, 453 P.2d 910 (1969). See In re Estes v. Hopp, 73 Wash.2d 263, 438 P.2d 205 (1968); McMullen v. Geiger, 184 Neb. 581, 169 N.W.2d 431 (1969). To the contrary are Peyton v. Nord, 78 N.M. 717, 437 P.2d 716 (1968), and, semble, Nieves v. United States, 280 ... ...
-
In re L.M.
... ... 339, 34 L.Ed.2d 252, (1972) (upholding statute that required trial court to hear and adjudicate juvenile cases without a jury); McMullen v. Geiger, 184 Neb. 581, 584, 169 N.W.2d 431 (1969) (holding juveniles do not have right to jury trial because it is a civil proceeding under State's parens ... ...
-
Johnson, In Interest of
... ... L**** D****, Me., 320 A.2d 885; In Re Johnson, 254 Md. 517, 255 A.2d 419; Welfare of J.E.C. v. State, 302 Minn. 387, 225 N.W.2d 245 (by inference); Hopkins v. Youth Court Of Issaquena County, Miss., 227 So.2d 282; In Re Fisher, Mo., 468 S.W.2d 198; In Re Geiger, 184 Neb. 581, 169 N.W.2d 431; In Re J.W., 57 N.J. 144, 270 A.2d 273; In Re State ex rel. J.W., 106 N.J.Super. 129, 254 A.2d 334; In Re D., 27 N.Y.2d 90, 313 N.Y.S.2d 704, 261 N.E.2d 627; In Re Burrus, 275 N.C. 517, 169 S.E.2d 879, aff'd sub nom., McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U.S. 528, 91 S.Ct ... ...
-
People in Interest of T.M., 85SA444
... ... amendment of federal constitution or state constitution's jury-trial guarantees); In the Interest of Hopkins, 227 So.2d 282 (Miss.1969); In re Fisher, 468 S.W.2d 198 (Mo.1971) (no violation of federal constitutional provisions and state constitution's jury-trial guarantee); In re Geiger, 184 Neb. 581, 169 N.W.2d 431 (1969); In re State in Interest of J.W., 57 N.J. 144, 270 A.2d 273 (1970); In re D, 27 N.Y.2d 90, 313 N.Y.S.2d 704, 261 N.E.2d 627 (1970), appeal dismissed, cert. denied, 403 U.S. 926, 91 S.Ct. 2244, 29 L.Ed.2d 705 (1971); In re Agler, 19 Ohio St.2d 70, 249 N.E.2d ... ...