State v. John
Decision Date | 10 December 1982 |
Docket Number | No. 82-066,82-066 |
Citation | 213 Neb. 76,328 N.W.2d 181 |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Clinton W. JOHN, Appellant. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Conspiracy. In determining whether a conspiratorial agreement exists, the defendant's conduct subsequent to the agreement and the circumstances surrounding the agreement may be considered by the jury.
2. Conspiracy. The function of the overt act in a charge of conspiracy is simply to manifest that the conspiracy is still at work.
3. Conspiracy. Under the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-202 (Reissue 1979), a person may be convicted of a conspiracy to solicit the commission of murder even though the person with whom he conspired feigned agreement and at no time intended to go through with the plan.
4. Conspiracy. Under the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-202 (Reissue 1979), an overt act done is an outward act done in pursuance of the conspiracy and manifests an intent or design looking toward the accomplishment of the crime. It need not of itself have a tendency to accomplish the object of the conspiracy and need not be an act which is criminal in itself.
5. Indictments and Informations: Waiver. An information charging an offense in substantially the words of the statute is generally sufficient. All defects that may be excepted to by a motion to quash are taken to be waived by a defendant pleading the general issue.
Joseph Ginsburg of Ginsburg, Rosenberg, Ginsburg, Cathcart, Curry & Gordon, Lincoln and Baldwin & McKernan, Hebron, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., and Mel Kammerlohr, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
The defendant was charged with the crime of criminal conspiracy as defined by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-202 (Reissue 1979), found guilty by a jury, and sentenced to a term of 1 to 5 years' imprisonment. On appeal to this court he assigns and argues the following errors, which allegedly occurred during the course of the trial, and that these mandate either a dismissal of the charges or a reversal and new trial: (1) The evidence was, as a matter of law, insufficient to establish the crime charged, hence the defendant's various motions for a directed verdict of acquittal should have been granted. (2) The trial court erred in failing to define the elements of criminal conspiracy. (3) The trial court erred in submitting to the jury for its consideration alleged overt acts which, as a matter of law, could not constitute overt acts within the meaning of the statute, and in failing to specifically define overt act. (4) The court erred in giving instruction No. 5, which stated in part, "The conspiracy may exist even though the party with whom it is charged the defendant conspired, pretended or feigned agreement and did not in fact intend to follow through." (5) The trial was conducted in a manner which, in several respects, prevented the defendant from having a fair trial, namely, (a) wholly hearsay and gratuitous remarks of witnesses were admitted; (b) the trial court received in evidence tape recordings of conversations of the defendant with an undercover agent posing as a hit man, as well as transcriptions of those conversations, which resulted in undue emphasis of that evidence; and (c) the transcript and tape recordings contained erroneous and prejudicial introductory information.
A consideration of the assignments of error makes it necessary that we first set forth the pertinent portions of the statute under which the defendant was charged, the charges as set forth in the information, and a summary of the evidence.
Section 28-202 provides in part: "(1) A person shall be guilty of criminal conspiracy if, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a felony:
The information charged: "Clinton W. John ... did, on or about the 4[th] day of June A.D. 1981, in the County of Hall and the State of Nebraska aforesaid, with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of first degree murder, did then and there, agree with one or more persons that they or one or more of them would engage in, solicit, or cause the first degree murder of Barbara John, and that Clinton W. John did commit overt acts in pursuance of the conspiracy, to-wit:
The State introduced evidence which tended to establish the following facts. On June 4, 1981, the defendant John and his wife, Barbara, were separated and an action for divorce was pending. John operated a business in Grand Island, Nebraska, and at that time lived at his place of business in an office which he had converted into a bedroom. On about June 3, 1981, the defendant John had dinner with an acquaintance from Minnesota, one Hanauer, and two other men, apparently Grand Island residents. Hanauer made a hobby of gun collecting, as did John.
Hanauer testified that, following the dinner, John approached him in private and said that he had a problem but did not want to discuss it at that time and asked Hanauer to come by the office the next day. Hanauer went to John's office the next morning as requested. At that time a conversation occurred between them. According to Hanauer, John asked him if he knew where he could get an unregistered gun and where he could find someone to dispose of his wife. To the latter question Hanauer answered "No." At that time John said, "This conversation is now ended." Hanauer stated that as they walked to the door he became nervous and frightened. His thought, as indicated by inference from later testimony, apparently was that, since John had disclosed a possible intention to murder his wife, he (Hanauer) might himself be in danger if the plan were actually carried out. At that time he turned to John and said, "Well, maybe I do know somebody." He then asked for John's card, and John gave him two. Hanauer testified that the more he thought about the matter the more concerned he became. He returned to Minnesota that day. When he reached home he called the sheriff's department, made an appointment for the following day, and disclosed the nature of his conversations with John.
At trial John, who took the stand in his own behalf, did not deny that a conversation had taken place in the office which he had converted into a bedroom, but gave a different version of the conversation and gave it different import. John stated he knew that Hanauer had a gun collection worth millions and that he asked Hanauer only three questions. John testified, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Copple
...conspiracy requires an "overt act." § 28-202(10(b). An overt act manifests that a conspiracy is "still at work." State v. John, 213 Neb. 76, 328 N.W.2d 181 (1982). Also, an overt act, as something done pursuant to a conspiracy, tends to show a preexisting conspiracy and manifests an intent ......
-
State v. Tyma, S-01-1070.
...See, also, State v. Null, 247 Neb. 192, 526 N.W.2d 220 (1995); State v. Knight, 239 Neb. 958, 479 N.W.2d 792 (1992); State v. John, 213 Neb. 76, 328 N.W.2d 181 (1982); Model Penal Code, § 5.03 (Tent. Draft No. 10, 1960). Under the unilateral approach, only the defendant need agree with anot......
-
State v. Lafler
...not have the capacity to accomplish the conspiratorial objective and does not have to be a criminal act. See, also, State v. John, 213 Neb. 76, 328 N.W.2d 181 (1982). The instruction given by the court comports with the characterization of "an overt act" expressed in State v. Copple, supra,......
-
State v. Heitman, S-00-429.
...Code. See, State v. Null, 247 Neb. 192, 526 N.W.2d 220 (1995); State v. Knight, 239 Neb. 958, 479 N.W.2d 792 (1992); State v. John, 213 Neb. 76, 328 N.W.2d 181 (1982); Model Penal Code § 5.03 (Tent. Draft No. 10, 1960). Under the unilateral approach, only the defendant need agree with anoth......