Satterfield v. State

• Decision Date: 26 May 1961
• Docket Number: No. 34964,34964
• Citation: 109 N.W.2d 415,172 Neb. 275
• Parties: Everett SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Nebraska, Defendant in Error.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 415

109 N.W.2d 415

172 Neb. 275

Everett SATTERFIELD, Plaintiff in Error, v. STATE of Nebraska, Defendant in Error.

No. 34964.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

May 26, 1961.

Syllabus by the Court

1. It is proper for a court to make an entry nunc pro tunc in order to correct its records so that they shall speak the truth.

2. Legislation applicable alone to a portion of the state is not for that reason forbidden by the Constitution when there is a reasonable relation between the objects of the legislation and the area to which it is applicable.

3. The Legislature may properly establish venue for prosecutions under the brand act in the county of origin of the cattle or in the counties through which the cattle pass in leaving the brand area.

4. The exercise of a legislatively-designated authority to make rules and regulations to carry out an expressed legislative purpose, or for the complete operation and enforcement of a law with designated limitations and standards, is not an exercise of legislative power. It is administrative in its nature, and its use by administrative agencies is usually essential to the complete and wise exercise of the power in the accomplishment of the purpose which the Legislature intended.

5. A person charged with the commission of a crime who has reached the age of accountability is conclusively presumed to know the law of the land, including both common law and statutory law.

6. Ignorance of the law excuses no one.

7. Objections to the mode of selecting petit jurors must be made before the trial to be of any avail.

E. L. Vogeltanz, Ord, for plaintiff in error.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Dwain L. Jones, Asst. Atty. Gen., for defendant in error.

Heard before SIMMONS, C. J., and CARTER, MESSMORE, YEAGER, SEPENCER, BOSLAUGH, and BROWER, JJ.

SPENCER, Justice.

This is an appeal from a conviction for transporting cattle from within the brand area to a point outside without first having a brand inspection.

The plaintiff in error, Everett Satterfield, hereinafter referred to as defendant, lists 24 assignments of error, nearly all of which are either not discussed or are improperly presented. Rule 8, subd. a, par. 2(4), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of Nebraska, 1960, provides: 'Assignments of error relied upon for reversal and intended to be urged in the brief shall be separately numbered and paragraphed, bearing in mind that consideration of the cause will be limited to errors assigned and discussed. However, the court may, at its option, notice a plain error not assigned.' This rule disposes of most of defendant's assignments. However, we will hereinafter discuss all of the principal ones.

The defendant, on December 1, 1959, hired a trucking firm to transport branded cattle from Loup County, Nebraska, inside the brand area, to a ranch 17 miles east of St. Paul in Merrick County, which is outside the brand area. No brand inspection was made of the cattle. A brand inspector learned of this violation and caused a brand inspection to be conducted. On January 29, 1960, a complaint was filed against defendant in the county court of Loup County. A jury found the defendant guilty as charged, and he was fined $50 and ordered to pay the costs.

He appealed to the district court for Loup County, and was found guilty by a jury. He was sentenced to pay a fine of $200 and costs, and to serve a term of 30 days in the county jail, which jail sentence was suspended. He appealed to this court.

The complaint on which defendant was tried in the district court did not bear a filing stamp until after the trial. There is no question it was in the court before the during the trial, but that the clerk of the district court neglected to place a filing stamp on it. Before the trial, defendant waived arraignment and entered a plea of not guilty to the complaint. After the trial the court entered a nunc pro tunc order to the effect that the complaint and original papers in the county court were admittedly filed October 24, 1960, before the defendant's plea, but that the clerk, through inadvertence and oversight, did not place the filing stamp upon them, and directed her to do so showing their filing as of October 24, 1960.

In Fisher v. Minor, 159 Neb. 247, 66 N.W.2d 557, 560, we said: 'It is proper for a court to make an entry nunc pro tunc in order to correct its records so that they shall speak the truth.'

As early as Garrison v. People, 6 Neb. 274, a rape case in which the clerk had failed to journalize an entry, we said: 'Courts retain authority over their records after the entry of judgment, and possess authority to supply a record which has been lost or destroyed, and in doing so must be governed by the rules of evidence. A court may amend its record to correspond with the facts, and this may be done from the judge's notes, or any other satisfactory evidence.' The defendant could not have been prejudiced by the failure of the clerk to stamp the complaint to show its filing date. The entry nunc pro tunc was entirely proper.

Defendant at several stages attempted to raise the constitutionality of sections 54-141 and 54-143, R.R.S.1943. Section 54-143, R.R.S.1943, provides as follows: 'No owner, shipper, person, persons, firm, motor carrier, railroad company or other carrier or corporation or his, her, its or their agent or agents or servant or servants, shall move, drive, ship or transport, in any manner, any cattle from any point within the brand area to any point outside the brand area, unless such cattle shall first have a brand inspection by the Nebraska Brand Committee; Provided, if the line designating the brand area divides any ranch or farm, written permission may be given, at the discretion of the Nebraska Brand Committee, to the owner or owners of cattle on such ranch or farm to move the cattle in and out of the brand area without inspection. In cases of prosecution for violation of this section, venue may be established in the county of origin or any other county through which the cattle may pass in leaving the brand area.'

Section 54-141, R.R.S.1943, provides as follows: 'The committee shall have the power and authority to pass rules and regulations relating to the administration of, but not inconsistent with the provisions of sections 54-134 to 54-156.'

Defendant has restricted the issue of constitutionality to the above two sections. Consequently, we are restricting our discussion to them.

Defendant contends that section 54-143, R.R.S.1943, provides a different right for people in different parts of the state and is discriminatory between citizens of the state. There is no question but that the act sought to remedy an evil existing in a certain area and operates equally upon all persons located within that area. The area included in the act represents the cattle and range area of Nebraska. As such, it can be readily distinguished from the rest of the state.

In McFadden v. Denter, 118 Neb. 38, 223...