State v. Hotz
| Decision Date | 01 April 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. S–10–105.,S–10–105. |
| Citation | 281 Neb. 260,795 N.W.2d 645 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee,v.Joseph D. HOTZ, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Rules of Evidence. In proceedings in which the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make such discretion a factor in determining admissibility.
2. Jury Instructions. Whether jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law.
3. Jury Instructions: Proof: Appeal and Error. To establish reversible error from a court's refusal to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant was prejudiced by the court's refusal to give the tendered instruction.
4. Criminal Law: Motions for New Trial: Appeal and Error. In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court's determination will not be disturbed.
5. Insanity: Proof. The two requirements for the insanity defense are that (1) the defendant had a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime and (2) the defendant did not know or understand the nature and consequences of his or her actions or that he or she did not know the difference between right and wrong.
6. Criminal Law: Intoxication: Intent. Intoxication has never been considered a justification or excuse for a crime, although intoxication may be considered to negate specific intent.
7. Criminal Law: Intoxication: Jury Instructions. Intoxication is no justification or excuse for crime; but evidence of excessive intoxication by which the party is wholly deprived of reason, if the intoxication was not indulged in to commit crime, may be submitted to the jury for it to consider whether in fact a crime had been committed or to determine the degree where the offense consists of several degrees.
8. Criminal Law: Intoxication: Mental Competency. As a matter of law, voluntary intoxication is not a complete defense to a crime, even when it produces psychosis or delirium.
9. Constitutional Law: Criminal Law: Due Process. Under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, criminal prosecutions must comport with prevailing notions of fundamental fairness. The U.S. Supreme Court has long interpreted this standard of fairness to require that criminal defendants be afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.
10. Constitutional Law: Due Process. The determination of whether procedures afforded an individual comport with constitutional requirements for procedural due process presents a question of law.
James R. Mowbray and Jeffery A. Pickens, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, Lincoln, and Paul Wess, Dawes County Public Defender, for appellant.Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and James D. Smith, Lincoln, for appellee.HEAVICAN, C.J., CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN, McCORMACK, and MILLER–LERMAN, JJ.HEAVICAN, C.J.
Joseph D. Hotz appeals from his convictions of second degree murder, attempted second degree murder, terroristic threats, and three counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Hotz filed a petition to bypass, alleging that his case presented a new or novel issue of law, and we granted his petition. The underlying issue in this case is whether the voluntary use of drugs may give rise to a defense of insanity rather than voluntary intoxication. We find that the insanity defense instruction may not be given and that the proper jury instruction is the voluntary intoxication instruction. But because we find that Hotz was deprived of a fair trial due to irregularities in the proceedings, we reverse, and remand for a new trial.
The facts of this case are largely undisputed. Hotz and the victim, Kenneth Pfeiffer, were roommates in Chadron, Nebraska. On December 5, 2008, at approximately 4 p.m., both Hotz and Pfeiffer consumed psilocybin mushrooms and smoked marijuana.
At approximately 6 p.m., the Chadron Police Department received the first of several 911 emergency dispatch calls from Susan Jensen. Jensen testified that she called 911 after she thought someone was trying to break into her house located on King Street. Jensen stated that she saw Hotz through a window, that he did not appear to be in his right mind, and that he was yelling, “ ‘Oh, my God, please help me.’ ” Jensen testified that after Hotz left, there was a crack in the door and red smears on the door that had not been there before.
A second 911 call was made from the home of Rolland Sayer and his wife, which home was also located on King Street. Sayer's wife was watching television in her living room when Hotz came through the front door holding two knives. Hotz had entered the home by breaking the glass of a small window near the door. Sayer was in the shower at the time Hotz entered the home. Sayer's wife testified that Hotz walked past her, went into the kitchen, and turned on the light. She stated that she exited the house and that Hotz did not follow her out. Sayer's wife then got inside the car parked in the driveway and locked the door. When Hotz came out of the house a short time later, she hid in the car until she thought he was gone.
Sayer testified that he was in the bathroom shaving when he heard an unusual noise, but when he called out to his wife, she did not respond. Sayer opened the door to find Hotz blocking his way. At that point, Hotz said, “ ‘I want all your weapons,’ ” and Sayer responded, “ ‘I do not have any weapons.’ ” Hotz then asked for all Sayer's possessions, and when Sayer said he did not have any possessions, Hotz stated, “ ‘I'm going to kill you.’ ” Hotz dropped a cordless telephone in front of Sayer, who grabbed the telephone, barricaded himself in the bathroom, and dialed 911. Hotz began battering the door with the knives, stabbing through the door. Sayer stated that Hotz' knives came within 6 or 8 inches of his hand. Sayer further testified that when the noise outside the bathroom door ceased, he exited the bathroom to check on his wife.
Patty Howard, the 911 dispatcher, also testified. She stated that the first 911 call came through at 6:08 p.m. from Jensen. Sgt. Shawn Banzhaf was present with Howard when the first call came in, so she immediately passed the information along to him. The second 911 call came in at 6:11 p.m. from Sayer. Howard stated that in the background of Sayer's call, she could hear a man shouting, “ ”
Banzhaf, Sgt. Mike Loutzenhiser, and Lt. Richard Hickstein, all with the Chadron Police Department, responded to the 911 calls. Upon arrival at the intersection of Eighth and King Streets, Loutzenhiser saw Hotz come through a gate at the house on the southwest corner of the intersection. Loutzenhiser testified that Hotz' shirt was covered in blood and that he held a knife. Loutzenhiser identified himself as a police officer and ordered Hotz to stop. Hotz ran away, and Loutzenhiser pursued him on foot.
Hotz was apprehended shortly thereafter. Hotz was able to follow Loutzenhiser's instructions to put his hands behind his head and lie down on the ground. Loutzenhiser asked Hotz if he needed medical attention, and Hotz said that he did not. Because Hotz appeared to be covered in blood, Loutzenhiser asked Hotz where the blood had come from, and Hotz stated that it had come from his roommate and possibly “this old gentleman in this house.” Loutzenhiser asked Hotz where his roommate was, and Hotz said “935 Shelton.” Loutzenhiser then put Hotz in the back of the patrol car. The camera recording from the patrol car, offered as an exhibit, was played for the jury. In the recording, Hotz calls for his parents, demands his rights, screams obscenities, and pleads for God to save him, but he is also able to answer some questions.
After leaving Hotz with Banzhaf, Loutzenhiser went to 935 Shelton Street to check on Pfeiffer. When Loutzenhiser approached, he observed a broken sliding glass door and broken glass on the porch. Loutzenhiser and Hickstein entered the house through the broken door and saw Pfeiffer's body lying in the hallway and blood all over the walls. One of the first floor bedrooms, later identified as Hotz', showed signs of forced entry on the door and latch.
Sgt. Monica Bartling of the Nebraska State Patrol interviewed Hotz beginning late in the evening on December 5, 2008, and continuing into the early morning hours of December 6. During the interview, Bartling asked Hotz to tell her what had happened. Hotz stated that he had taken mushrooms and that he had begun to have a horrible feeling of “not existing.” Hotz also stated that he believed he had been tricked into behaving in a certain way. Hotz stated that this occasion marked the third time he had consumed mushrooms. He stated that on one prior occasion, he had experienced anxiety and the belief that “the CIA was after him.” Hotz stated that on this occasion, he felt as though Pfeiffer was “mocking” him and all his intellectual pursuits. Hotz also said that he felt it was “kill or be killed.”
Hotz stated that Pfeiffer would not leave him alone. Hotz brandished a knife to get Pfeiffer to back off, and they scuffled. Hotz dropped the knife and ran downstairs to the basement. When Hotz came upstairs again, Pfeiffer still would not leave him alone, and Hotz said that he had the feeling that Pfeiffer was going to kill him. Hotz stabbed Pfeiffer in the arm, and Pfeiffer yelled at him, saying, Hotz stated that they struggled in the hallway. Hotz stated that he did not remember much about stabbing Pfeiffer.
Trooper Mark Van Horn, a drug recognition expert with the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kahler v. Kansas
...and consequences of his or her actions or that he or she did not know the difference between right and wrong." State v. Hotz , 281 Neb. 260, 270, 795 N. W. 2d 645, 653 (2011).Nevada"To qualify as being legally insane, a defendant must be in a delusional state such that he cannot know or und......
-
State v. Dubray
...430 U.S. 188, 193, 97 S.Ct. 990, 51 L.Ed.2d 260 (1977).81 See State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507, 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005).82 State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260, 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011).83 See id. , citing Tvrz v. State, 154 Neb. 641, 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951).84 See, State v. Bevins, 187 Neb. 785, 194 N.W.2d 1......
-
State v. Torres
...N.W.2d 157 (1997). 77.Ellis, supra note 13. 78.Id. 79. See State v. Reeves, 216 Neb. 206, 344 N.W.2d 433 (1984). Cf. State v. Hotz, 281 Neb. 260, 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011). 80.Ellis, supra note 13, 281 Neb. at 611, 799 N.W.2d at 300–301. 81.Ellis, supra note 13. 82.Id. 83.Id. 84.Id. 85.Id. 86.P......
-
State v. Esch
... ... [ 32 ] Id. at 14 ... [ 33 ] Brief for appellee at 11 ... [ 34 ] See NJI2d Crim. 8.0, ... [ 35 ] See State v. Abejide , 293 ... Neb. 687, 879 N.W.2d 684 (2016) ... [ 36 ] O'Grady v. State , 36 ... Neb. 320, 321, 54 N.W. 556, 556 (1893). See, State v ... Hotz , 281 Neb. 260, 795 N.W.2d 645 (2011); Tvrz v ... State , 154 Neb. 641, 48 N.W.2d 761 (1951); Hill v ... State , 42 Neb. 503, 60 N.W. 916 (1894); Carr v ... State , 23 Neb. 749, 37 N.W. 630 (1888); Johnson v ... Phifer , 6 Neb. 401 (1877). See, also, State v ... Brennauer, supra ... ...