State v. O'Kelly, 39717

• Decision Date: 27 March 1975
• Docket Number: No. 39717,39717
• Citation: 227 N.W.2d 415,193 Neb. 390
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. William R. O'KELLY, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 415

227 N.W.2d 415

193 Neb. 390

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. William R. O'KELLY, Appellant.

No. 39717.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

March 27, 1975.

Syllabus by the Court

1. When the jury is admonished to disregard objectionable questions and answers, a mistrial ordinarily will not be granted.

2. Unless an error can be considered prejudicial to the rights of a defendant, it may not be considered as ground for reversal.

3. It is within the discretion of the District Court to direct that sentences imposed for separate crimes be served consecutively.

4. It is frivolous to suggest that the refusal of a District Court to make a Nebraska sentence concurrent with a sentence in another jurisdiction is an abuse of discretion.

Paul E. Watts, J. Joseph McQuillan, Gerald E. Moran, George R. Sornberger, Omaha, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Harold Mosher, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before SPENCER, BOSLAUGH and BRODKEY, JJ., and HASTINGS and CLARK, District Judges.

SPENCER, Justice.

Defendant, William R. O'Kelly, prosecutes this appeal from a conviction of burglary, and possession of burglary tools. Defendant was tried jointly with Grover C. Robinson and William E. Micek but prosecuted a separate appeal.

The facts are set out in State v. Micek and Robinson, Neb., 227 N.W.2d 409, and will not be repeated herein except as necessary. Defendant alleges six assignments of error: (1) Failure of the trial court to sustain his motion to suppress physical evidence; (2) failure to sustain his motion for a mistrial for prejudicial questions; (3) failure to sustain his motion for a mistrial on the ground that the prosecution failed to comply with a mutual order for discovery; (4) the giving of an aider and abettor instruction; (5) imposition of a sentence of 7 years for the possession of burglary tools; and (6) in not making defendant's sentence concurrent with a sentence previously imposed by the District Court for Pottawattamie County, Iowa. We affirm as modified.

The motion to suppress has been adequately answered in State v. Micek and Robinson, Supra, and will not be further discussed herein.

Defendant's second assignment of error is directed to prosecution questions attempting to show that his wife Elizabeth O'Kelly was present at the Micek residence at approximately 5 a.m. the same morning as the burglary. Many objections were posed to this line of questioning. The court then held a hearing outside the presence of the jury and determined that this line of questioning should not be continued. When the jurors were called back the trial court admonished them to disregard the objectionable questions and answers. Other than defendant's statement that the questions were prejudicial, there is not a scintilla of evidence that they were so. When the jury is admonished to disregard objectionable questions and answers a mistrial ordinarily will not be granted. State v. Schumacher (1972), 189 Neb. 138, 201 N.W.2d 249. The court's admonition sufficiently cured any possible prejudice, certainly in the absence of some proof otherwise.

O'Kelly's third assignment of error argues that the prosecutor did not comply with a reciprocal discovery order. The facts as evidenced in the bill of exceptions and in the prosecutor's affidavit indicate any delay was brought about by defense counsel's conduct. The prosecutor's affidavit explains that he had informed counsel for defendant that a tool and some rubber boots removed from the car defendant occupied, as well as some pieces of plasterboard removed from the burglary site, had been sent to the F.B.I. for testing and that the agents would testify to similarities they found between the plasterboard and articles of plaster found on the tool and rubber boots. The affidavit further states that after the trial was underway, the prosecutor learned that appellant intended to rely on an alibi defense. To meet this, the prosecutor asked an F.B.I. agent to run new tests which were intended to determine whether or not there were plasterboard particles on the defendant's clothing. These tests were made at a local hospital after 7 p.m. The witness was called to testify the next morning within a very few hours after the tests were completed. The prosecutor cannot be faulted under the circumstances. He proceeded with due diligence when he learned new tests were necessary....