State v. Huerta

• Decision Date: 07 February 1974
• Docket Number: No. 39131,39131
• Citation: 191 Neb. 280,214 N.W.2d 613
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Tony A. HUERTA, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 613

214 N.W.2d 613

191 Neb. 280

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Tony A. HUERTA, Appellant.

No. 39131.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Feb. 7, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

1. The failure to object promptly to an offer of evidence waives the objection.

2. In determining whether or not photographic identification procedures have been impermissibly suggestive, the question must be determined by an evaluation of all the surrounding circumstances.

3. There is no right to counsel at a pretrial photographic identification.

4. Each case must be considered on its own facts and a conviction based on eyewitness identification at trial, following pretrial identification by photograph, will be set aside on that ground only if the photographic identification procedure was so impermissibly suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.

5. Even though an in-court identification may have been tainted by an impermissible suggestive out-of-court photographic identification, the in-court identification may properly be received if it has an independent source.

E. Dean Hascall, Hascall, Jungers & Pelton, Bellevue, for appellant.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Atty. Gen., Betsy G. Berger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ.

McCOWN, Justice.

A jury found the defendant, Tony A. Huerta, guilty of robbery. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 to 20 years. His appeal involves issues as to the admission of a shotgun as demonstrative evidence and photographic identifications of the defendant.

At about 9 p.m., on October 2, 1972, four masked men entered the Richfield Cafe in Richfield, Sarpy County, Nebraska. They were armed with a shotgun, a knife, and a mallet. A short heavy-set man of dark complexion with long bushy hair and wearing a colored checked shirt, later identified as the defendant, guarded the door with the shotgun while the other three took the proprietor's billford, and the cash from the cash registers in the cafe. They got $329.16. The proprietor, his wife, an employee, and four patrons witnessed the robbery.

The robbers left the cafe and drove a noisy red car out of town going south. The police were called and descriptions of the robbers broadcast on the police radio. Between 9 and 9:30 p.m., a 'loud' car drove into a farmyard, circled in the yard, and stopped at the end of the lane. The farm was approximately half a mile south and three-quarters of a mile east of Richfield. The farmer watched the five occupants working on their red car at the end of his driveway in the light of the yard light. He became suspicious when they did from a passing car. The farmer's wife called the sheriff. Officers arrived shortly and parked down the road. The farmer fired two shots in the air to alert the officers. Four of the five occupants of the car fled on foot through fields south of the farm house. The fifth occupant, Tom Cecetka, stayed in the car and was arrested at the scene. Pieces of the blanket used for masking were found stewn along the road and one piece was in the car. Cecetka gave the names of the others to the officers. Meanwhile, efforts were made to track the fugitives with dogs. At around midnight four men were picked up walking along a road in the vicinity. The names given matched the names which had been given to officers by Cecetka, and the four were arrested. A knife was found on the person of one man named Griger, and a total of approximately $300 in cash was taken from the four men, most of it from Griger.

On the morning after the robbery some distinctive red helmets similar to those worn in the robbery, and a shotgun similar to that used in the robbery, were found. They were lying alongside the tracks of the fugitives in the field near the farm house lane.

At the trial, Cecetka identified all the defendants and testified as to their participation in the planning and carrying out of the robbery. The proprietor of the cafe, his wife, their employee, and two of the patrons in the cafe at the time of the robbery identified the defendant Huerta in court as the man holding the shotgun during the robbery. One or more witnesses also identified in court each of the other defendants as a participant in the robbery.

The first contention of the defendant on appeal is that the admission in evidence of the shotgun found along the path of flight was improper and prejudicial to the defendant Huerta. The finding of the shotgun along the flight path of the robbers was probably enough in itself to make the gun admissible but there was considerably more than that. Each of the eyewitnesses to the robbery testified that one robber had a shotgun with a long barrel. Most of the witnesses identified it as a .410 like the one offered in evidence. Cecetka testified that the robbers had picked up a .410 shotgun at the house of one of the defendants before the robbery. When a fact in issue may be explained by the...