State v. Matz
| Decision Date | 25 September 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-046,87-046 |
| Citation | 226 Neb. 581,412 N.W.2d 852 |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. James A. MATZ, Appellant. |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Convictions: Appeal and Error. In determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a jury trial, this court does not resolve conflicts in evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, evaluate explanations, or reweigh evidence presented to the jury. A verdict in a criminal case must be sustained if the evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the verdict.
2. Convictions: Circumstantial Evidence. A person charged with a crime may be convicted on circumstantial evidence only.
3. Burglary: Intent. An intent sufficient to support a conviction of burglary may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding an illegal entry into improvements on real estate.
4. Burglary: Intent. A forcible and unauthorized nocturnal entry into a building known to contain property is a circumstance from which a jury may infer an intent to steal.
5. Burglary: Intent. Burglary does not require an actual theft or asportation of property.
Avis R. Andrews, Fremont, for appellant.
Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Laura L. Freppel, Lincoln, for appellee.
The defendant, James A. Matz, was convicted of two counts of attempted burglary and was sentenced to imprisonment for 20 months to 5 years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently. He has appealed and contends the evidence was insufficient to support the finding of guilty on each count.
The charges grew out of break-ins at Tidy Car and Victory Lake Marine, two businesses in Fremont, Nebraska, which share a common building. The record shows that when Vern Sukstorf, who operates Tidy Car, reported for work on the morning of July 29, 1986, he found splatters of blood on the inside floor, as well as two broken windows on the rear of the building. Additionally, he noticed a trail of blood from both broken windows, leading to his front office. The trail of blood approached his desk but stopped 4 to 5 feet in front of the desk. Sukstorf found no contents missing from his store.
Ron Vlach, who operates Victory Lake Marine, found a broken window at the rear of his business. The window was part of a garage door and was located just above the lock assembly of the door. Vlach noticed a large amount of blood both on the outside of and the inside of the garage door, as well as on the locking mechanism. Vlach followed a trail of blood from the broken garage window about 100 feet to where another window was broken. Vlach found no contents missing from his building.
The trail of blood led through a parking lot to apartment No. 11 in an apartment complex. Tammy Patten, who lives in apartment No. 11, testified that sometime after midnight on July 29, 1986, the defendant came to her door, holding his hand and wearing a bloodstained shirt. The defendant was looking for "Jim," who lived in apartment No. 12. Matz left without incident.
Within a week of the incident, Patten identified the defendant in a photo lineup as the man looking for "Jim."
When the defendant was observed on August 6, 1986, following his arrest, he had a large laceration in the web of his left hand, between his thumb and the forefinger.
Steven Tellatin, a Fremont detective sergeant who assisted with the investigation of the break-ins, found a tire iron, screwdriver, potato chip sack, and glass fragments near the building, all stained with blood.
An expert witness testified that a comparison of blood samples found at the scene of the crime with samples obtained from the defendant disclosed that only .04 percent of the population had blood of the same type and with the same "genetic markers." This analysis excluded 99.96 percent of the population as suspects.
The defendant contends the evidence was not sufficient to establish that he intended to commit any felony or steal any property of value, as required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-507 (Reissue 1985).
[I]n determining whether evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a jury trial, this court does not resolve conflicts of evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, evaluate explanations, or reweigh evidence presented to the jury. A verdict in a criminal case must be sustained if the evidence, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the verdict.
State v. Jacobs, 226 Neb. 184, 194, 410 N.W.2d 468, 475 (1987); State v. Nesbitt, 226 Neb. 32, 409 N.W.2d 314 (1987); State v. Schreck, 226 Neb. 172, 409 N.W.2d 624 (1987).
Although much of the evidence was circumstantial, a person charged with a crime may be convicted on circumstantial evidence only. State v. Meadows, 203 Neb. 197, 277 N.W.2d 707 (1979), citing State v. Ohler, 178 Neb. 596, 134 N.W.2d 265 (1965).
It is the province of the jury to determine the circumstances surrounding, and which shed light upon, the alleged crime; and if, assuming as proved the facts which the evidence tends to establish, they can be accounted for upon no rational theory which does not include the guilt of the accused, the proof cannot, as a matter of law be said to have failed.
State v. Meadows, supra 203 Neb. at 199, 277 N.W.2d at 708.
An intent sufficient to support a conviction of burglary may be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding an illegal entry into improvements on real estate. State v. Vaughn, 225 Neb. 38, 402 N.W.2d 300 (1987); State v. Coburn, 218 Neb. 144, 352 N.W.2d 605 (1984). Nocturnal entry into a building known to contain property is a circumstance from which a jury may infer an intent to steal. State v. Tomrdle, 214 Neb. 580, 335 N.W.2d 279 (1983). In the Tomrdle case at 583, 335 N.W.2d at 282, we cited Hebb v. State, 10 Md.App. 145, 268 A.2d 578 (1970): " 'The attempt by the appellants to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Khalaf
...anything from inside Clinkenbeard's residence, burglary does not require an actual theft or asportation of property. State v. Matz, 226 Neb. 581, 412 N.W.2d 852 (1987). We find that, after viewing the evidence in the light favorable to the State, a rational finder of fact could find, throug......
-
State v. Dimmitt, A-96-641
...be inferred from the facts and circumstances surrounding an illegal entry into real estate. State v. Zemunski, supra; State v. Matz, 226 Neb. 581, 412 N.W.2d 852 (1987); State v. Vaughn, 225 Neb. 38, 402 N.W.2d 300 (1987). The Nebraska Supreme Court has noted that nocturnal entry into a bui......
-
State v. Khalaf
...anything from inside Clinkenbeard's residence, burglary does not require an actual theft or asportation of property. State v. Matz, 226 Neb. 581, 412 N.W.2d 852 (1987). We find that, after viewing the evidence in the light favorable to the State, a rational finder of fact could find, throug......
-
State v. Borer
... ... or any improvements erected thereon with intent to commit any ... felony or with intent to steal property of any value." ... § 28-507(1). Burglary does not require an actual theft ... or asportation of property. State v. Matz , 226 Neb ... 581, 412 N.W.2d 852 (1987). A forcible and unauthorized ... nocturnal entry into a building known to contain property is ... a circumstance from which a fact finder may infer an intent ... to steal. See State v. Nero , 281 Neb. 680, 798 ... N.W.2d 597 ... ...