State v. Lesiak, 88-1034
| Decision Date | 29 December 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-1034,88-1034 |
| Citation | 234 Neb. 163,449 N.W.2d 550 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Clifford LESIAK, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Trial: Expert Witnesses. The right of an indigent defendant to the appointment of an expert witness at State expense generally rests in the discretion of the trial court.
2. Criminal Law: Mental Competency. The test of responsibility for crime is the defendant's capacity to understand the nature of the act alleged to be criminal and the ability to distinguish between right and wrong with respect to the act.
3. Criminal Law: Mental Competency. The fact that the defendant suffers from some form of mental illness or defect will not alone establish lack of responsibility.
4. Criminal Law: Intent: Intoxication. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a crime, unless an accused is intoxicated to such an extent that he is incapable of forming the requisite element of criminal intent.
5. Criminal Law: Evidence: Intent: Alcoholic Liquors. In procuring liquor for a minor, the general criminal intent is supplied by the performance of the proscribed act. The offense of procuring liquor for a minor does not involve a specific criminal intent.
Frank J. Skorupa, Columbis, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Elaine A. Catlin, for appellee.
The defendant was convicted by a jury of procuring alcoholic liquor for a minor, in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 53-180 (Reissue 1988), and was sentenced to 60 days in the county jail. Prior to trial, the defendant filed a motion for an alcohol evaluation at The Mid-East Nebraska Mental Health Clinic at the State's expense. After an evidential hearing, the motion was overruled.
Upon appeal to the district court, the judgment was affirmed. The defendant has now appealed to this court and contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for an alcohol evaluation at the State's expense in order to prepare his defense, and as a result, the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel. The defendant's indigency was not an issue in the trial court.
The evidence at the hearing on the defendant's motion for an alcohol evaluation consisted of the testimony of Carrol Barnes, an alcohol and drug abuse counselor employed by the Mid-East mental health clinic in Columbus, Nebraska. Barnes testified that he had a master's degree in psychology and counseling and had worked in that field for approximately 6 1/2 years. He had previously worked at the Valley Hope organization since 1982, specializing in alcoholic counseling and psychological testing. He had been at the Mid-East clinic for a little over a month.
At the hearing on the motion, the only evidence relating to the defendant's history consisted of court files concerning previous convictions for driving while intoxicated. Although the trial court took judicial notice of these court files, they do not appear in the record filed in this court.
Barnes testified that a person who had been convicted three times for driving while intoxicated and had been involved in inpatient treatment for alcohol abuse at a veterans' hospital and Valley Hope would be an alcoholic. Barnes further testified that a person can be an alcoholic to such an extent that although he can function normally, he may be unaware of what he is doing. He stated that an alcoholic can suffer a "blackout," which is an inability to recall what he did while he was under the influence of alcohol. Depending on the degree of chronic alcoholism, an alcoholic suffering from blackouts may or may not know at the time of the act whether it is wrong.
In Barnes' opinion, an alcohol evaluation would determine whether a person is a severe type of alcoholic. The greater the degree of alcoholism, the more likely one is to suffer blackouts.
At the hearing on the motion, there was no evidence that the defendant had been drinking at the time of the offense, or what quantity of alcoholic liquor he may have consumed.
The defendant argues that an alcohol evaluation was necessary to determine whether the defendant was the type of alcoholic who could not distinguish right from wrong. He claims this was necessary to prepare his defense, and by denying him access to an expert to determine the extent of his alcoholism, he was denied equal protection under the law.
At the trial, the defendant's 16-year-old son, Harlan Thomas Lesiak, testified that he went to the Double T Bar and asked the defendant to buy him some beer. The defendant bought the beer with money supplied by his son and delivered it to his son and three other teenagers who were waiting in Joe and Al's parking lot.
The son testified that the defendant was "real drunk" when he bought the beer for him...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Wood
...on other grounds, State v. Burlison, supra note 22 ; State v. Boppre , 234 Neb. 922, 453 N.W.2d 406 (1990) ; State v. Lesiak , 234 Neb. 163, 449 N.W.2d 550 (1989) ; State v. Suggett , 200 Neb. 693, 264 N.W.2d 876 (1978) ; State v. Quezada, supra note 1 ; State v. Turco , 6 Neb. App. 725, 57......
-
State v. Reynolds
...v. Bevins, 187 Neb. 785, 194 N.W.2d 181 (1972); State v. LaPlante, 183 Neb. 803, 164 N.W.2d 448 (1969). See, also, State v. Lesiak, 234 Neb. 163, 449 N.W.2d 550 (1989); State v. Hoffman, 227 Neb. 131, 416 N.W.2d 231 (1987); State v. Brown, 174 Neb. 393, 118 N.W.2d 332 (1962); Thompson v. St......
-
State v. Grimes, S-93-668
...to the appointment of an expert witness at State expense generally rests in the discretion of the trial court. State v. Lesiak, 234 Neb. 163, 449 N.W.2d 550 (1989). See, also, State v. Suggett, 200 Neb. 693, 264 N.W.2d 876 In the case at hand, we cannot say that denial of the motion for eva......
-
State v. Nielsen
...act alleged to be criminal and (2) the ability to distinguish between right and wrong with respect to such act. See State v. Lesiak, 234 Neb. 163, 449 N.W.2d 550 (1989). All four psychiatrists concluded that Nielsen was sane under the M'Naghten rule at the time he killed his father-in-law. ......
-
Just say no excuse: the rise and fall of the intoxication defense.
...v. Langworthy, 331 N.W.2d 171, 177 (Mich. 1982). (269) See State v. Kjeldahl, 278 N.W.2d 58, 61 (Minn. 1979). (270) See State v. Lesiak, 449 N.W.2d 550, 552 (Neb. (271) See Nevius v. State, 699 P.2d 1053, 1060 (Nev. 1985). (272) See State v. Tapia, 466 P.2d 551, 553 (N.M. 1970). (273) See S......