Poulsom v. State
| Decision Date | 29 September 1925 |
| Docket Number | 24497 |
| Parties | THOMAS E. POULSOM v. STATE OF NEBRASKA |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
ERROR to the district court for Otoe county: JAMES T. BEGLEY, JUDGE. Reversed.
REVERSED.
D. W. Livingston and A. P. Moran, for plaintiff in error.
O. S. Spillman, Attorney General, and Lester L. Dunn, contra.
Heard before MORRISSEY, C. J., ROSE, DEAN, DAY and THOMPSON, JJ.
Defendant prosecutes error from a conviction had in the district court for Otoe county on an information charging a violation of section 9616, Comp. St. 1922, chapter 91, Laws 1923, in that defendant received and had in his possession an automobile, knowing the same to have been stolen.
The information contains no allegation which, either directly or indirectly, alleges that defendant received or had the car in his possession in Otoe county.
At the opening of the trial defendant filed a general demurrer to the information, which was overruled by the court. The correctness of this ruling is presented for review.
To sustain the ruling of the trial court the attorney general cites Bartley v. State, 53 Neb. 310, 73 N.W. 744, Dunn v. State, 58 Neb. 807, 79 N.W. 719, and Fussell v. State, 102 Neb. 117, 166 N.W. 197. In the first case cited, Bartley v. State, supra, the rule is announced: "An information, in the caption and venue of which a given county and state are named, which charges that the defendant 'in the county aforesaid, then and there being in said county,' did commit a given crime, sufficiently alleges that the offense was committed in the county stated in the caption and venue." The succeeding cases have merely followed that rule. In the instant case the title and caption are not made a part of the information by reference, or otherwise, and the cases cited by the state are not in point. The rule is well settled that, to confer jurisdiction upon the court for the trial of an offender, the indictment or information must allege specifically that the crime was committed within the jurisdiction of the court. McCoy v. State, 22 Neb. 418, 35 N.W. 202.
It was error for the court to overrule the demurrer, and the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Langford v. State
...Beemer, 81 Neb. 824, 116 N. W. 862;In re Vogland, 48 Neb. 37, 66 N. W. 1028;Lower v. State, 106 Neb. 666, 184 N. W. 174;Poulsom v. State, 113 Neb. 767, 205 N. W. 252. The judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause remanded. Reversed.DEAN, J. (dissenting). This dissent is respe......
-
Langford v. State
... ... notwithstanding its language is mandatory. The failure to ... comply therewith constituted a jurisdictional defect ... Cubbison v. Beemer, 81 Neb. 824, 116 N.W. 862; ... In re Vogland, 48 Neb. 37, 66 N.W. 1028; Lower ... v. State, 106 Neb. 666, 184 N.W. 174; Poulsom v ... State, 113 Neb. 767, 205 N.W. 252 ... The ... judgment of the district court is reversed and the cause ... remanded ... REVERSED ... DISSENT ... DEAN, ... J., dissenting ... This ... ...
-
Smith v. State
...allegation that the crime charged was committed within the jurisdiction of the court is vulnerable to a general demurrer.' Poulsom v. State, 113 Neb. 767, 205 N.W. 252. This statement was approved in State v. Furstenau, 167 Neb. 439, 93 N.W.2d 384. In McCoy v. State, 22 Neb. 418, 35 N.W. 20......
-
People v. Steiner
...Martinez v. People, 163 Colo. 503, 431 P.2d 765 (1967). This same rule is applicable to incorporating the caption. Poulsom v. State, 113 Neb. 767, 205 N.W. 252 (1925). Absent a clear and specific incorporation by reference, each count of an information must be independent of the others, and......