Goff v. State
| Decision Date | 06 May 1911 |
| Docket Number | 17,056 |
| Citation | 131 N.W. 213,89 Neb. 287 |
| Parties | EDGAR GOFF v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Otoe county: HARVEY D. TRAVIS JUDGE. Affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
Andrew P. Moran, for plaintiff in error.
Grant G. Martin, Attorney General, and Frank E. Edgerton, contra.
Edgar Goff, hereinafter called the defendant, was tried in the district court for Otoe county under section 16 of the criminal code for a felonious assault. He was found guilty and sentenced to the penitentiary for a term of two years. He now prosecutes error to this court. Section 16 is as follows "If any person shall maliciously shoot, stab, cut or shoot at any other person, with intent to kill, wound, or maim such person, every person so offending shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary not more than twenty years nor less than one year."
His first contention is that the information upon which he was tried does not state facts sufficient to charge him with the commission of any crime, in that it does not allege "that any weapon of any kind was used in making the assault," and therefore the defendant had no knowledge that the state would attempt to prove that the assault was made with a knife, and that defendant was thereby taken by surprise. It is urged that the information should make the charge specifically and definitely in order that the accused may know the nature of the charge against him. A number of authorities are cited, but we do not deem it necessary to refer to them, as we think that question is definitely settled in this state. We have repeatedly held that, where a statute states the elements of a crime, it is generally sufficient, in an information or indictment, to describe such crime in the language of the statute. Murphey v. State, 43 Neb. 34, 61 N.W. 491; Leisenberg v. State, 60 Neb. 628, 84 N.W. 6; Chapman v. State, 61 Neb. 888, 86 N.W. 907; Cordson v. State, 77 Neb. 416, 109 N.W. 764. We do not think there is any force in the argument that, under an information which charges that the defendant did unlawfully, wilfully and maliciously cut and stab, evidence that the cutting and stabbing was done with a knife would be any surprise to the defendant. Common everyday language implies that cutting and stabbing is done with a knife. While one might be stabbed with a fork or cut with a razor, he could not be both cut and stabbed with either. But, be that as it may, the information in this case follows the statute and was sufficient.
It is next contended that the court erred in its instructions to the jury, and erred in refusing a number of instructions requested by defendant. The only exception noted to these instructions is found in a paper filed in the case, which recites: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Harrington v. Hedlund
... ... was defeated because it was in that part of the Fort Randall ... Military Reservation selected by the state as school lands in ... lieu of other school lands of which the state had been ... deprived by early homesteaders. Defendant's controversies ... ...