State v. Korf
| Decision Date | 24 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | 41830,Nos. 41829,s. 41829 |
| Citation | 266 N.W.2d 86,201 Neb. 64 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Dennis KORF, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Nonconsent to enter the premises as an element of trespass may be proved by direct testimony or circumstantial evidence.
2. Generally, this court will not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance which does not appear in the record on appeal.
Paul E. Watts, Gerald E. Moran, Robert C. Sigler, Julianne M. Dunn, Omaha, for appellant.
Herbert M. Fitle, City Atty., Gary P. Bucchino, City Prosecutor and Richard M. Jones, Asst. City Prosecutor, Omaha, for appellee.
Heard before WHITE, C. J., and SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, CLINTON, BRODKEY, and WHITE, JJ.
The defendant was charged in the Omaha municipal court in separate complaints with trespassing and prowling or loitering. He was convicted and sentenced to 45 days' imprisonment in the Douglas County jail on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. Upon appeal to the District Court the convictions were affirmed but the sentence on the trespassing charge was reduced to 30 days' imprisonment and the sentence on the loitering charge was reduced to 10 days' imprisonment. The defendant has now appealed to this court where the cases were consolidated for briefing and argument. The assignments of error relate to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the judgments.
The record shows that Pam Hawkins left her place of employment in downtown Omaha at about 1:45 a. m., on April 14, 1977. While she was driving home she noticed that she was being followed by a driver in a Pontiac station wagon. The station wagon followed her from about Farnam Street and the Interstate to a residence at 621 Beverly Drive which was the home of her boyfriend, Bernard McCoy. She entered the house, awakened Bernard, and then called the police. Together they watched the defendant walk around the house; look in the windows; drive his car into the driveway; enter the garage; and then drive away. They followed the defendant to get his license number and were following the defendant when he was apprehended by the police.
Bernard McCoy testified that the property at 621 Beverly Drive was owned by his mother and that neither he nor anyone, to his knowledge, had given the defendant permission to enter the garage. This evidence was sufficient to make a prima facie case that the defendant was not "invited, licensed or privileged" to be upon the property. Nonconsent may be proved by direct testimony or circumstantial evidence. See State v. Simons, 187 Neb. 761, 193 N.W.2d 756.
The complaint on the loitering charge alleged that the defendant "did unlawfully loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law abiding individuals under circumstances that warranted alarm for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity." The evidence which has been...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Buescher, S-91-285
...the limits set by the ordinance. State v. King, supra. See, also, State v. Long, 206 Neb. 446, 293 N.W.2d 391 (1980); State v. Korf, 201 Neb. 64, 266 N.W.2d 86 (1978); State v. Sator, 194 Neb. 120, 230 N.W.2d 224 (1975); Foley v. State, 42 Neb. 233, 60 N.W. 574 Without benefit of the ordina......
-
State v. Long
...in the record. This court will not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance which does not appear in the record. State v. Korf, 201 Neb. 64, 266 N.W.2d 86 (1978). The existence of a valid ordinance creating the offense charged will be presumed where the ordinance is not properly set fo......
-
State v. Wells, S-98-824.
...against an interloper. See, e.g., Vacanti v. Master Electronics Corp., 245 Neb. 586, 514 N.W.2d 319 (1994). See, also, State v. Korf, 201 Neb. 64, 266 N.W.2d 86 (1978) (holding that invitation or license may constitute The trial court excluded Wells' proffered justification evidence on the ......
-
State v. Austin
...in the record. This court will not take judicial notice of a municipal ordinance which does not appear in the record. State v. Korf, 201 Neb. 64, 266 N.W.2d 86 (1978). In order for us to determine that the provisions of § 29-1804.05 are applicable, we would have to assume that either of the......