State v. Cole
| Decision Date | 20 July 1984 |
| Docket Number | 83-388,Nos. 83-387,s. 83-387 |
| Citation | 352 N.W.2d 154,218 Neb. 1 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Frankie L. COLE, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Criminal Law: Double Jeopardy: Burglary. Neither an acquittal nor a conviction of a larceny committed in the course of a burglary bars a prosecution for the crime of burglary.
2. Criminal Law: Double Jeopardy. The rule that a person cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense has no application where two separate and distinct crimes are committed by one and the same act, because the constitutional inhibition is directed to the identity of the offense and not to the act.
3. Indictments and Informations. Two or more offenses may be charged in the same information if the offenses charged are of the same or similar character.
4. Indictments and Informations: Joinder. The court may order two or more informations to be tried together if the offenses could have been joined in a single information.
Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Victor Gutman, Omaha, for appellant.
Frankie L. Cole, pro se.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., and Michaela M. White, Lincoln, for appellee.
The defendant, Frankie L. Cole, was charged in case No. 83-387 with burglary of the Kardell Service Station in Omaha, Nebraska, on October 16, 1982. In case No. 83-388 he was charged with burglary of the H & V Auto Repair in Omaha, Nebraska, on October 15, 1982, and with theft of an MGB automobile from H & V Auto Repair.
Upon the motion of the State the cases were consolidated for trial and were tried together to a jury. At the close of the State's evidence the trial court dismissed the burglary count in case No. 83-388. The jury returned a verdict of guilty in both cases. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years on each count, the sentences to run consecutively.
The defendant appealed to this court, where the cases were consolidated for argument. The defendant contends that it was error for the trial court to deny the defendant's motion to dismiss one of the counts in case No. 83-388 and to consolidate the cases for trial.
The evidence shows that the Kardell Service Station was burglarized on the night of October 15, 1982. Three tires were stolen and a large number of cigarettes and approximately $50 in change were taken from the cigarette machine. The H & V Auto Repair was burglarized the same night and an MGB automobile was taken from the shop. The defendant was apprehended at about 5 a.m. on October 16, 1982, while driving the stolen MGB automobile. A large quantity of cigarettes was found in the automobile, and the defendant had a large amount of change on his person when arrested. His thumbprint was found on the door panel which had been removed to gain entry into the Kardell Service Station. The evidence was clearly sufficient to permit the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on both counts.
The defendant moved to dismiss one of the counts in case No. 83-388 on the theory that he was being placed in double jeopardy by being charged with both burglary and larceny arising out of the same incident.
In State v. Carter, 205 Neb. 407, 410-11, 288 N.W.2d 35, 37 (1980), we said:
Neither an acquittal nor a conviction of a larceny committed in the course of a burglary bars a prosecution for the crime of burglary. The People v. Woolsey, 399 Ill. 617, 78 N.E.2d 237 [1948]; Cambron v. State, 191 Ind. 431, 133 N.E. 498 [1922]; Williams v. State, 205 Md. 470, 109 A.2d 89 [1954]; State v. Wiley, 173 Md. 119, 194 A. 629 [1937]; People v. Snyder, 241 N.Y. 81, 148 N.E. 796 [1925]; People v. Mignogna, 54 N.Y.Supp.2d 233 [1945]; People v. Mangano, 269 App.Div. 954, 57 N.Y.Supp.2d 891 [1945], affirmed 296 N.Y. 1011, 73 N.E.2d 583 [1947]; Cooper v. State, 154 Tex.Crim. 182, 226 S.W.2d 122 [1949]; Alarcon v. The State, 92 Tex.Crim. 288, 242 S.W. 1056 [1922]; State v. Beaman, 143 Wash. 281, 255 P. 91 [1927]; State v. Louden, 21 N.J.Super. 497, 91 A.2d 428 [1952]. The rule that a person cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense has no application where two separate and distinct crimes are committed by one and the same act because the constitutional inhibition is directed to the identity of the offense and not to the act. State v. Goodloe, 197 Neb. 632, 250 N.W.2d 606 [1977].
The defendant's argument is similar to that made in State v. Eagle Deer, supra, [205 Neb. 249, 286 N.W.2d 770 (1980) ], where the defendant was charged with burglary and the stealing of an automobile. The factual situation was similar to that involved in this case. The jury found the defendant guilty of wrongful use of an automobile (a lesser-included offense of auto theft), as well as guilty of the burglary charge. It was argued that the verdicts on the two charges were inconsistent. We said: "The evidence was also legally sufficient for the jury to have found the defendant guilty of stealing the automobile, but the fact that he was found guilty of only the lesser-included offense of wrongful use of the automobile on count II does not make the guilty verdict on count I...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Vrtiska
...act or transaction, the offenses may be joined in one trial. See, State v. McGuire, 218 Neb. 511, 357 N.W.2d 192 (1984); State v. Cole, 218 Neb. 1, 352 N.W.2d 154 (1984); State v. Rodgers, 186 Neb. 633, 185 N.W.2d 448 (1971). A trial court's ruling on a motion for consolidation of prosecuti......
-
State v. McGuire, s. 83-674
...similar character, they could be joined in one information and the trial court could order that they be tried together. State v. Cole, 218 Neb. 1, 352 N.W.2d 154 (1984). In all three robberies the same gun was described, a similar description of the man and some of the same articles of clot......
-
State v. Rice
...state and federal, where imposition of the multiple punishments is specifically authorized by state statute. See, also, State v. Cole, 218 Neb. 1, 352 N.W.2d 154 (1984); State v. Jackson, 217 Neb. 332, 348 N.W.2d 866 The third assignment of error relates to the testimony of Turner concernin......
-
State v. Cole, 85-934
...counsel and counsel on appeal were inadequate and incompetent. Defendant's convictions were affirmed by this court in State v. Cole, 218 Neb. 1, 352 N.W.2d 154 (1984). In affirming defendant's convictions this court found that the assignments of error in the defendant's pro se brief were wi......