Hansen v. State, No. 27799.

• Court: Supreme Court of Nebraska
• Writing for the Court: DAY
• Citation: 121 Neb. 169,236 N.W. 329
• Docket Number: No. 27799.
• Decision Date: 30 April 1931
• Parties: HANSEN v. STATE.

121 Neb. 169
236 N.W. 329

HANSEN
v.
STATE.

No. 27799.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

April 30, 1931.

Syllabus by the Court.

A properly verified information may be held sufficient if it states the name and authority of a qualified informer and sets out the facts constituting the elements of murder in the first degree in simple, concise and direct language.

Syllabus by the Court.

Where an information follows the statute and form heretofore approved in this court, it is sufficient.

Syllabus by the Court.

“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.” Morgan v. State, 51 Neb. 672, 71 N. W. 788.

Syllabus by the Court.

Evidence in case examined and held sufficient to sustain verdict.

Error to District Court, Douglas County; Fitzgerald, Judge.

Hans Hansen was convicted of murder in the second degree, and he brings error.

Affirmed.

[236 N.W. 329]

Lloyd Crocker, Gray & Brumbaugh, and Frank V. Lawson, all of Omaha, for plaintiff in error.

C. A. Sorensen, Atty. Gen., and Homer L. Kyle, Asst. Atty. Gen., for the State.

Heard before GOSS, C. J., and ROSE, DEAN, GOOD, DAY, and PAINE, JJ.

DAY, J.

This is a criminal action in which Hansen is charged with murder in the first degree. He was convicted of murder in the second degree and sentenced to 25 years in the penitentiary. He prosecutes proceedings in error to this court.

[1][2] It is urged that the information does not state facts sufficient to constitute a charge of murder in the second degree and therefore the court was without jurisdiction. This is a question of first concern to this court. That part of the information which charges the crime of murder in the first degree is as nearly in the identical language suggested by this court in Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N. W. 333, as the facts would permit. In the Nichols Case, the court adopted a form of information in criminal cases and under statutory and constitutional provisions promulgated it as a rule of practice for inferior courts. Comp. St. 1929, § 29-1501; Const. art. 5, § 25. The technical rules of the common law as to informations were relaxed by the said court rule. Morris v. State, 109 Neb. 412, 191 N. W. 717. In Phegley v. State, 113 Neb. 138, 202 N. W. 419, 420, it was said: “As to overruling the motion to quash the information and the plea in abatement, it is sufficient to say that this court, in Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N. W. 333, considered the statutes and our previous decisions with a view to harmonizing them, and outlining the form and allegations necessary to be set forth in an information charging murder in the first degree, so that such a pleading might be stripped of verbiage, and brought more clearly within the modern rules of procedure.”

In Ringer v. State, 114 Neb. 404, 207 N. W. 928, 929, we said: “The form of the information in the present case was, no doubt, drawn in response to a suggestion of this court in Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N. W. 333, in which it was stated, that the long and complicated form of an information for murder, generally in use, is not necessary to meet the requirements of the statute, and a short form set out in the opinion was suggested. The question now raised was before the court in Phegley v. State, 113 Neb. 138, 202 N. W. 419, in which it was held: ‘An information, charging murder in the first degree in language bringing it within the rule announced in Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N. W. 333, is sufficient.’ Measured by

[236 N.W. 330]

these standards, the information charged the offense of murder in the first degree.”

The defendant contends that intent or purpose to kill is an essential charge in the information and is omitted herein. He cites Schaffer v. State, 22 Neb. 557, 35 N. W. 384, 3 Am. St. Rep. 274, in support of his contention. A similar question was presented in Davis v. State, 116 Neb. 90, 215 N. W. 785, 787, also cited by the defendant, and we said: “The case of Schaffer v. State, 22 Neb. 557, 35 N. W. 384, 3 Am. St. Rep. 274 * * * is not in point. The information which was condemned in that case did not contain an allegation with reference to intent, similar to the one herein set out.” In the Davis Case it was also said: “It may be observed in this case that the information is needlessly involved and teems with unnecessary verbiage and repetition. As heretofore pointed out by this court, an information should charge the offense in simple, concise, direct language. A suitable form is prepared and set out in Nichols v. State, 109 Neb. 335, 191 N. W. 333. * * * Attention is called specifically to the form of information contained in the opinion in Nichols v. State, supra, in the hope that those charged with the prosecution of criminal offenses will hereafter draw indictments and informations conformable to the suggestions therein contained.”

In Pembrook v. State, 117 Neb. 759, 222 N. W. 956, 957, it was said: “The unbroken holdings of this court have...