Nichols v. State
Decision Date | 08 December 1922 |
Docket Number | 22571 |
Citation | 191 N.W. 333,109 Neb. 335 |
Parties | CHARLES NICHOLS v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Cheyenne county: J. LEONARD TEWELL JUDGE. Affirmed: Sentence reduced.
AFFIRMED.
J. E Willits, for plaintiff in error.
Clarence A. Davis, Attorney General, and C. L. Dort, contra.
Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., LETTON, ROSE, ALDRICH, FLANSBURG and DAY, JJ., REDICK and SHEPHERD, District Judges.
In a prosecution by the state in the district court for Cheyenne county, Charles Nichols, defendant, was convicted of murder in the first degree and for that felony was sentenced to suffer the penalty of death. As plaintiff in error he presents for review the record of his conviction.
The first assignment of error challenges the overruling of a plea to discharge defendant on the ground of delay in the filing of the information. A statutory provision authorized a recognizance requiring accused to appear forthwith before the district court, if in session. Laws 1915, ch. 162. This however, applied to a bailable offense, and not necessarily to a charge of murder in the first degree. Another statutory provision declares:
"Any person held in jail charged with an indictable offense shall be discharged if he be not indicted at the term of court at which he is held to answer." Comp. St. 1922, sec. 10044.
This applies to prosecutions by information also. Defendant was not entitled to a discharge. He shot and killed Emma Carow, June 17, 1921. The complaint charging him with murder in the first degree was filed with the county judge as an examining magistrate June 21, 1921. Defendant was arraigned the same day and pleaded not guilty. He waived preliminary examination and was committed to prison without bail "for his appearance before the next jury term of the district court," not at the April term, which convened April 25, 1921, and adjourned July 25, 1921. The jury for the April term had been excused May 14, 1921, prior to the homicide. The transcript of the preliminary proceedings before the examining magistrate was filed in the district court June 23, 1921. The next regular or October jury term convened October 17, 1921, and adjourned December 31, 1921. This is the term at which defendant was "held to answer." The information was filed in the district court October 17, 1921, during the term at which defendant was required to appear, and the trial began October 20, 1921, and lasted three days. The sentence was pronounced October 24, 1921. Under the circumstances the committing magistrate was not required to bind defendant over to the April term. He was properly "held to answer" at the next or October term. The information was filed at the beginning thereof within the time limited by law. There was clearly no error in overruling the plea to discharge defendant without a trial.
The next assignment of error is based on the overruling of a plea in abatement. It is contended that the prosecution should have been abated on the ground of a variance between the complaint before the examining magistrate and the information filed in the district court. The import of the argument under this head is that the preliminary complaint charged that defendant assaulted Emma Carow with the intention of killing himself, while the information on which he was tried accused him of making the assault with intent to murder her; the deduction being that, on the latter charge, there was no preliminary hearing or waiver thereof, or opportunity to plead thereto before the examining magistrate, and that therefore the plea in abatement should have been sustained. This is a technical point without merit. It grows out of an obvious reference in a single place in the preliminary complaint to the accused instead of the victim of the homicide. Both the original complaint before the examining magistrate and the information subsequently filed in the district court charge defendant with murder in the first degree. The inaccuracy of the reference was perfectly plain on the face of the complaint and did not eliminate a material fact or mislead or prejudice defendant in the slightest degree.
Instead of a short form, charging the felony in simple and direct language without unnecessary details, repetitions or other superfluous matter, the county attorney felt called upon to use a form long sanctioned by the judiciary in attempting to observe portions of the English common law adopted by the legislature of Nebraska. The information, though valid and sanctioned by precedent, is not in a form suited to present conditions. It is as follows:
It was in attempting to follow this complicated form, giving and repeating unnecessary details, that the complainant before the examining magistrate inadvertently referred in one place to the accused instead of the victim of the homicide. While the charge in the present instance was sufficient notwithstanding the error, justice is sometimes delayed or defeated by errors in vain and pompous repetitions found in common-law forms. The ancient form used by the county attorney in the present instance is a relic of times when blood-thirsty rulers, religious bigots and political tyrants intentionally inflicted punishments on innocent victims under false charges. Those abominations have passed away, but some of their forms still remain to embarrass the courts in the administration of justice under new conditions.
The legislature has made provisions for averting some of the evils resulting from the failure to observe technicalities of the common law in regard to informations. A statute on this subject provides:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial