State v. Johnson
Citation | 695 N.W.2d 165,269 Neb. 507 |
Decision Date | 25 March 2005 |
Docket Number | No. S-02-1503.,S-02-1503. |
Parties | STATE of Nebraska, appellee v. Kenneth JOHNSON, appellant. |
Court | Supreme Court of Nebraska |
Brett McArthur, Lincoln and Franklin E. Miner, for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Susan J. Gustafson for appellee.
Kenneth Johnson was tried in the district court for Lancaster County for incest and for first degree sexual assault on a child, based on acts allegedly committed against his stepdaughter. He was acquitted by a jury of the first degree sexual assault charge but convicted of incest. Johnson appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. Included in the issues raised on appeal relative to the incest statute, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-703(1) (Reissue 1995), was a consideration of the correct definition of "minor" under the incest statute for acts committed against a stepchild and whether § 28-703 is unconstitutionally vague for failing to define "minor." The Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson's conviction. State v. Johnson, 12 Neb.App. 247, 670 N.W.2d 802 (2003). We granted Johnson's petition for further review. We affirm.
Johnson and his wife were married in 1991. Johnson's wife had four children from previous relationships, all of whom lived with the couple. Johnson had five children, two of whom lived periodically with the couple. At the time of the marriage, C.K., a stepdaughter of Johnson, was around 10 years old.
Johnson admitted to police that when C.K. was around the age of 17, Johnson and C.K. had sexual contact, and that they had sexual intercourse when C.K. was 18 years old. C.K., however, testified that the contact started at age 12 and that intercourse started a year later and continued until she contacted the police.
On November 30, 2001, Johnson was charged with first degree sexual assault on a child (count I), in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-319 (Reissue 1995), and incest (count II), in violation of § 28-703(1). Section 28-703(1) provides, "Any person who shall knowingly intermarry or engage in sexual penetration with any person who falls within the degrees of consanguinity set forth in section 28-702 or any person who engages in sexual penetration with his or her minor stepchild commits incest."
Johnson filed a motion in limine asking the court to exclude the evidence of his statement made to police officers on October 4, 2001. Specifically, Johnson objected to any statement he made regarding sexual contact with the alleged victim when she was 16 years or older. At the hearing, Johnson argued, in part, that any alleged sexual contact with C.K. when she was above the age of consent would not constitute incest and that the statement would be unfairly prejudicial. The court overruled the motion in limine. The case proceeded to a jury trial. Before the case was submitted to the jury, Johnson objected to jury instruction No. 4 which stated in relevant part that an element of the charge of incest was that C.K. "was, at the time of the offense, less than nineteen (19) years old." The court overruled the objection and refused to give Johnson's proposed jury instruction No. 4 which would have stated in relevant part that an element of the charge of incest was that C.K. "was, at the time of the offense, less than sixteen (16) years old." The jury found Johnson not guilty of first degree sexual assault on a child but found him guilty of stepchild incest. The court entered judgment in conformity with the jury verdict and sentenced Johnson.
Johnson appealed to the Court of Appeals. He asserted that the district court erred in (1) overruling his motion for directed verdict for the reason that the State failed to make a prima facie showing of all the elements of its case and because the statute upon which the charge was based is unconstitutionally vague; (2) allowing the State to amend the information to include the word "minor" in the charge of incest; (3) overruling his motion for mistrial; (4) refusing to grant him a new arraignment after the information was amended, thereby denying him an opportunity to file a motion to quash; (5) overruling his objection to jury instruction No. 4; and (6) refusing to give his proposed jury instruction in place of jury instruction No. 4. The Court of Appeals rejected each of these assignments of error. State v. Johnson, 12 Neb.App. 247, 670 N.W.2d 802 (2003).
With respect to Johnson's claim that § 28-703 was unconstitutional, the Court of Appeals determined that Johnson had not complied with Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 9E (rev. 2000) and therefore concluded that the claim had not been properly preserved for appellate review. Rule 9E generally provides for the filing of a separate notice challenging the constitutionality of a statute and serving a brief on the Attorney General. The Court of Appeals also rejected Johnson's assertions that the district court erred in giving the State's instruction No. 4 on the definition of "minor," as it pertained to the stepchild incest charge in count II, and in refusing to give Johnson's proposed instruction on the definition of "minor."
The Court of Appeals noted that § 28-703 does not define "minor" and that minors are described as being persons of different ages for different purposes in various Nebraska statutes. The Court of Appeals concluded that Neb.Rev.Stat. § 43-2101 (Reissue 2004) provided the correct definition of the term "minor" in § 28-703. The Court of Appeals reasoned as follows:
State v. Johnson, 12 Neb.App. 247, 259-60, 670 N.W.2d 802, 813 (2003).
The Court of Appeals therefore concluded that the instruction given by the district court correctly stated the law and that the instruction proposed by Johnson did not correctly state the law. The Court of Appeals rejected all of Johnson's remaining assignments of error and affirmed his conviction. We granted Johnson's petition for further review.
Johnson asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting his arguments that the district court had erred in (1) overruling his motion for directed verdict for the reason that the State failed to make a prima facie showing of all the elements of its case and for the further reason that § 28-703, the statute upon which the charge was based, is unconstitutionally vague; (2) allowing the State to amend the information; (3) overruling his motion for mistrial; (4) refusing to grant him a new arraignment after the information was amended; (5) overruling his objection to jury instruction No. 4; and (6) refusing to give his proposed jury instruction.
Interpretation of a statute presents a question of law, for which an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision made by the court below. State v. Aguilar, 268 Neb. 411, 683 N.W.2d 349 (2004).
Constitutionality of § 28-703.
We first consider Johnson's assertion that § 28-703 is unconstitutionally vague in its...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Robinson
...v. Griffin, 270 Neb. 578, 705 N.W.2d 51 (2005). Statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. State v. Johnson, 269 Neb. 507, 695 N.W.2d 165 (2005). The word "case" ordinarily means "[a] civil or criminal proceeding, action, suit, or controversy at law or in equity." Bla......
-
State v. Dubray
...135 L.Ed.2d 361 (1996).80 See Marks v. United States, 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 (195......
-
State v. Boche
...; State v. Watt , 285 Neb. 647, 832 N.W.2d 459 (2013).3 Adams v. State , 293 Neb. 612, 879 N.W.2d 18 (2016).4 State v. Johnson , 269 Neb. 507, 513, 695 N.W.2d 165, 170–71 (2005).5 Zawaideh v. Nebraska Dept. of Health & Human Servs ., 280 Neb. 997, 1004–05, 792 N.W.2d 484, 492 (2011) (emphas......
-
State v. Archie
...in sexual penetration with his or her minor stepchild commits incest," a Class III felony. Archie relies on the dissenting opinion in State v. Johnson15 and argues that § 28-703 is unconstitutionally vague because it does not define the age of a "minor" In Johnson, the defendant was acquitt......