State v. Joubert
| Decision Date | 08 July 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. S-84-842,S-84-842 |
| Citation | 518 N.W.2d 887,246 Neb. 287 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. John J. JOUBERT, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Death Penalty: Appeal and Error. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2525 (Reissue 1989) grants a prisoner convicted and sentenced to death an automatic appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court, during which time Neb. Const. art. I, § 23, stays execution of the sentence until further order of this court.
2. Death Penalty: Courts: Jurisdiction. The Nebraska Supreme Court has the statutory authority to set an execution date once it has considered the prisoner's automatic appeal and determined that death is the legally appropriate sentence.
3. Death Penalty: Courts: Warrants. The failure to execute a death warrant on the original date fixed does not result in the discharge of a prisoner sentenced to die, but requires the Nebraska Supreme Court to fix a new date for the execution.
4. Statutes. Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, no interpretation is needed, and a court is without authority to change such language.
5. Statutes. When the language used in a statute requires interpretation or may reasonably be considered ambiguous, the statute is open to construction.
6. Criminal Law: Statutes. Although a penal statute must be strictly construed, it is to be given a sensible construction, and general terms are to be limited in their construction and application so as to avoid injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence.
7. Statutes: Intent: Appeal and Error. In construing a statute, an appellate court must look at the statutory objective to be accomplished, problem to be remedied, or purpose to be served, and then place on the statute a reasonable construction which best achieves its purpose, rather than a construction which will defeat the purpose.
8. Statutes. In construing a statute, a court must attempt to give effect to all of its parts, and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as superfluous or meaningless; it is not within the province of the court to read anything plain, direct, and unambiguous out of the statute.
9. Statutes. The language of a statute is to be considered in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense.
10. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. A series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter, statutory components of acts which are in pari materia, may be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature so that different provisions of an act are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.
11. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In construing a statute, the legislative intention is to be determined from a general consideration of the whole act with reference to the subject matter to which it applies and the particular topic under which the language in question is found, and the intent as deduced from the whole will prevail over that of a particular part considered separately.
12. Statutes: Legislature: Intent: Presumptions. Generally, where a statute has been judicially construed and that construction has not evoked amendment, it will be presumed that the Legislature has acquiesced in the court's determination of its intent.
13. Courts: Words and Phrases. The inherent judicial power of a court is that power which is essential to the court's existence, dignity, and functions.
14. Constitutional Law: Courts. Inherent judicial power is not derived from legislative grant or specific constitutional provision, but from the very fact that a court has been created and charged by the Constitution with certain duties and responsibilities.
15. Constitutional Law: Courts. Inherent judicial power is essential to the existence of a court and the orderly and efficient exercise of the administration of justice. Inherent judicial power exists in addition to the express grants of judicial power to each court and originates in the mandate of the Nebraska Constitution of the separation of powers between three coequal branches or departments of government.
16. Courts. Inherent judicial power arises from necessity where, in the absence of any previously established procedural rule, rights would be lost or a court would be unable to function.
17. Courts. Through its inherent judicial power, the Nebraska Supreme Court has authority to do all things that are reasonably necessary for the proper administration of justice, whether any previous form of remedy has been granted or not.
18. Courts: Jurisdiction. A court that has jurisdiction to make a decision also has the power to enforce it by making such orders as are necessary to carry its judgment or decree into effect.
19. Courts. The primary duty of the courts is the proper and efficient administration of justice.
20. Constitutional Law: Courts. It is the duty of a court to see that justice is administered speedily, without delay, and legally, and in conformity to constitutional mandates.
21. Courts. A ministerial act may be completed by the Nebraska Supreme Court even after its mandate is issued because such act in no way involves a reconsideration of the judicial determination made.
22. Courts: Judgments: Jurisdiction. The jurisdiction of a court is not exhausted by the rendition of its judgment, but continues until that judgment shall be satisfied.
23. Courts: Jurisdiction. In order for an inferior court to reacquire jurisdiction, it must take action on the Nebraska Supreme Court's mandate.
Mark A. Weber, Waltine, O'Toole, McQuillan & Gordon, Omaha, for appellant.
Don Stenberg, Atty. Gen., and J. Kirk Brown, Lincoln, for appellee.
Notwithstanding the existence of a stay issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, the plaintiff State, through its Attorney General, has moved this court to set still another date for executing the convicted prisoner, John J. Joubert. The prisoner has responded by filing a special appearance objecting to this court's jurisdiction over the matter and by filing a motion for sanctions, claiming that given the pendency of the federal stay, the Attorney General's motion is frivolous and vexatious. For the reasons hereinafter stated, the prisoner's special appearance is overruled, the Attorney General's motion is overruled without prejudice, and the prisoner's motion for sanctions is overruled without prejudice.
Upon pleading guilty, the prisoner was convicted in the district court of two counts of first degree murder and sentenced to death on each count. This court affirmed those sentences in State v. Joubert, 224 Neb. 411, 399 N.W.2d 237 (1986), and thereupon issued its mandate to the district court with the direction to "enter judgment in conformity with the judgment and opinion of this court." This court subsequently issued a warrant ordering that Joubert be put to death by passing an electric current through his body. That order of execution was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court on Joubert's petition for a writ of certiorari. Upon the termination of that stay, this court issued a second death warrant. Upon Joubert's motion, this court itself later stayed that order of execution so that he might pursue his legislatively created proceeding for postconviction relief. When that quest proved unsuccessful, State v. Joubert, 235 Neb. 230, 455 N.W.2d 117 (1990), this court issued a third death warrant. That order of execution was again stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court on another petition by Joubert for a writ of certiorari. Upon the termination of that stay, this court issued the fourth death warrant, yet again ordering that Joubert be put to death. On July 3, 1991, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska, upon Joubert's petition for federal habeas corpus relief, entered an order staying "execution of [the] sentence" pending resolution
of the petition. Joubert v. Hopkins, case No. 8:CV 91-00350.
This opinion concerns itself with the two issues presented by the Attorney General's motion and the prisoner's special appearance: whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the Attorney General's motion and, if so, whether this court may set an execution date notwithstanding the federal stay of the "sentence."
There are two aspects to the prisoner's claim that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Attorney General's motion: the contention that no court possesses jurisdiction to set successive execution dates and the position that even if such jurisdiction exists, this court has surrendered its jurisdiction to the district court.
Whether jurisdiction exists to entertain the Attorney General's motion in turn breaks down into two questions: whether there is a statutory basis for such jurisdiction and whether there is any other basis for such jurisdiction.
Because the Legislature has addressed the setting of execution dates in several statutes, we initially turn to those enactments for guidance in determining whether, upon appeal to this court, an execution date is properly set by this or the original sentencing court.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2543 (Supp.1993) provides:
Whenever any person has been tried and convicted before any district court in this state of a crime punishable by death and under the conviction has been sentenced by the court to suffer death, it shall be the duty of the clerk of the court before which the conviction was had to issue a warrant, under the seal of the court, reciting therein the conviction and sentence directed to the warden of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, commanding him or her to proceed at the time named in the sentence to carry the same into execution....
However, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-2525 (Reissue 1989) grants a prisoner convicted and sentenced to death an automatic appeal to this court, during which time Neb. Const. art. I, § 23, stays execution of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montgomery v. Rosen
...that admonition, at least in some contexts, to "the setting of an execution date" while a stay is in effect. State v. Joubert , 246 Neb. 287, 518 N.W.2d 887, 897–98 (1994). Moreover, even assuming that the stay at issue in this case did not independently deprive the Director of authority to......
-
McKenzie v. Day
...ministerial, nondiscretionary act carried out in furtherance of the former. Montana v. McKenzie, 894 P.2d at 291; Nebraska v. Joubert, 246 Neb. 287, 518 N.W.2d 887, 891 (1994). The setting of an execution date through the issuance of a death warrant is within the inherent power of the court......
-
State v. Ryan
...to be limited in their construction and application so as to avoid injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. State v. Joubert, 246 Neb. 287, 518 N.W.2d 887 (1994). Where the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, no interpretation is needed, and a court is without authority ......
-
State v. Gales
...to be limited in their construction and application so as to avoid injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. State v. Joubert, 246 Neb. 287, 518 N.W.2d 887 (1994). In construing a statute, it is presumed that the Legislature intended a sensible, rather than an absurd, result. State v......