State v. Last, 81-719
| Decision Date | 24 September 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-719,81-719 |
| Citation | 324 N.W.2d 402,212 Neb. 596 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Pamela K. LAST, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Indictments and Informations. An information or indictment must inform the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the charge being made against him in order that he may prepare his defense thereto and also be able to plead the judgment rendered thereon as a bar to later prosecution for the same offense.
2. Indictments and Informations. An amendment adding an omitted allegation of a substantive element of the offense sought to be charged does not change the offense.
3. Miranda Rights. Once an accused requests the assistance of counsel, the interrogation of that individual must end.
4. Miranda Rights: Waiver. The protection afforded accused, once he has asked for the assistance of counsel, may thereafter be waived by the accused if done knowingly, freely, and voluntarily.
5. Miranda Rights: Confessions. Miranda does not protect an accused, even though he has requested counsel, from a spontaneous admission made under circumstances not induced by the investigating officers or during the conversation not initiated by the officers.
6. Sentences: Appeal and Error. In the absence of an abuse of discretion, a sentence imposed within statutory limits will not be disturbed on appeal.
7. Probation and Parole: Appeal and Error. The granting of probation as opposed to the imposing of a sentence is a matter which is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, and, absent a showing of abuse, this court will not on appeal disturb the trial court's denial of probation.
Dennis R. Keefe, Lancaster County Public Defender, and Dorothy A. Walker, Lincoln, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., and G. Roderic Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before KRIVOSHA, C. J., and BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, WHITE, HASTINGS, and CAPORALE, JJ.
The appellant, Pamela K. Last (Last), appeals from a judgment and conviction finding her guilty of the offense of attempted robbery in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 28-324(1) and 28-201(b) (Reissue 1979). Attempted robbery is a Class III felony punishable by imprisonment of not less than 1 year nor more than 20 years, or a fine of not to exceed $25,000, or both a fine and imprisonment. Last was sentenced by the court to imprisonment for a period of 18 months. We affirm.
The charge of attempted robbery filed against Last arose out of the attempted robbery of Thomas Jelsma by Larry Harris in front of Mr. Jelsma's residence in Lincoln, Nebraska, at about 1:30 a. m. on October 11, 1980. During the course of the attempted robbery Harris was fatally wounded by Jelsma. Prior to the attempted robbery a light-colored sedan-type automobile was observed by Jelsma parked in the neighborhood. After Jelsma shot Harris, he observed this vehicle leave the area but he was unable to identify the driver. Subsequently, a 1969 white Dodge four-door vehicle was located parked approximately 2 blocks from the attempted robbery scene. Among the items found in the vehicle was a purse containing identification items belonging to Last. Further investigation revealed that the owner of the vehicle had loaned the vehicle to Last sometime during the month of September 1980. The owner was aware at the time that Last was acquainted with Harris and, further, had personal knowledge that on several occasions Harris had driven the vehicle without Last.
Several employees of the Lincoln Police Department, including Det. Allen F. Soukup, were assigned to investigate Last's possible involvement in the attempted robbery. Soukup had been acquainted with Last for some 10 years.
On October 11, 1980, Soukup had three conversations with Last with respect to her possible involvement in the attempted robbery. The first conversation occurred when Soukup, along with four other officers, went to Last's apartment. Prior to interrogating Last, Soukup advised her of her rights by reading to her the standard Miranda card, to which she responded affirmatively to each question. Upon request, Last voluntarily consented to a search of her apartment and a search of her own automobile, which was parked behind her apartment. When questioned by Soukup as to whether she knew Larry Harris, Last responded "yes, he's been living here." When Soukup advised Last that he would have to take her to police headquarters for further questioning, she voluntarily went with the officer.
During the second interrogation, which occurred at police headquarters, Soukup urged Last to tell him the truth concerning what she knew about the attempted robbery. Soukup concedes that he told Last if she was not involved in the attempted robbery she would be free to leave. Last asked to speak to an attorney and Soukup permitted her to do so. Following a call to her attorney no further interrogation between Soukup and Last took place.
Following Last's call to her attorney Soukup and Last went to a room located at police headquarters containing vending machines. Soukup purchased something for Last to eat. Without any inducement by Soukup, nor in response to any question by Soukup, Last voluntarily said to Soukup, "I didn't panic after the shots were fired, I simply drove away and parked the vehicle a couple blocks away and walked back to see if I could help Larry or if Larry was hurt." Further questions were then asked of Last by Soukup. The trial court suppressed all the answers given by Last in response to questions propounded to her by Soukup following her outburst, and admitted in evidence only the unsolicited voluntary statement of Last. The other statements are not in issue in this appeal.
Last was then charged with the crime of attempted robbery. The complaint in the county court, upon which Last was arraigned, and the information filed in the District Court, upon which trial commenced, provided in material part as follows: (Emphasis supplied.) On May 21, 1981, that being the third day of trial, the State moved, over the objection of Last, to amend the information to add the words "with intent to steal."
Last now assigns as a basis for reversal a number of errors which can be reduced to three categories. The first assignment is that the trial court erred in not quashing the original information on the basis that it failed to include an essential element of the crime charged. The second assignment of error is that the trial court erred in failing to quash the statement made by Last to Soukup in the vending machine area at police headquarters. The third assignment of error is that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing Last to 18 months' imprisonment rather than placing her on probation.
Turning first to the contention that the information as originally filed was defective and that it was error to permit the State to amend, we believe the assignment should be overruled.
Last's argument in this regard is based upon her contention that by omitting the words "with intent to steal" from the information, the information failed to allege a crime and therefore was fatally defective. The information, however, did specifically charge Last with the crime of "attempted robbery." There is only one crime of robbery under the Nebraska Criminal Code and it is found at § 28-324. The statute provides as follows: "A person commits robbery if, with the intent to steal, he forcibly and by violence, or by putting in fear, takes from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatever." Under the Nebraska definition of robbery, "with intent to steal" is indeed a necessary element which the State was obligated to prove. By alleging that Last had attempted to commit the crime of robbery, as defined by statute, the information of necessity included all the elements of the crime of robbery. Under the Nebraska Criminal Code, the use of the word "robbery" in an information by definition includes the element "with intent to steal," and, in effect, the information was sufficient when it charged Last with attempting to commit the crime of "robbery."
The purpose of requiring that the information set out the charge in a particular manner is twofold. As we noted in State v. Adams, 181 Neb. 75, 78, 147 N.W.2d 144, 148-49 (1966): "An information or indictment must inform the accused, with reasonable certainty, of the charge being made against him in order that he may prepare his defense thereto and also be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Antillon
...of a nonessential allegation to the information does not change the offense charged, State v. Gascoigen, supra; State v. Last, 212 Neb. 596, 324 N.W.2d 402 (1982), and the defendant does not claim that the amendment creates an additional or different charge. Rather, the defendant contends t......
-
State v. Wehrle
...a bar to a later prosecution for the same offense. See State v. Adams, 181 Neb. 75, 147 N.W.2d 144 (1966). See, also, State v. Last, 212 Neb. 596, 324 N.W.2d 402 (1982). For a sufficient information, there is no constitutional requirement "that detailed particulars of the crime must be stat......
-
State v. Miller
...the trial court. Id. at 423-24, 176 N.W.2d at 234. See, also, State v. Lingle, 209 Neb. 492, 308 N.W.2d 531 (1981). In State v. Last, 212 Neb. 596, 324 N.W.2d 402 (1982), the Supreme Court again looked to the specific facts to determine whether the defendant was apprised of the charge again......
-
State v. Jallen, 83-970
...probation in any case "for which mandatory imprisonment is not specifically required ...." We apply the rule set out in State v. Last, 212 Neb. 596, 324 N.W.2d 402 (1982), with regard to appeals by defendants from the denial of probation, to the situation presented under § 29-2320 where the......