State v. Spidell, 39932

• Decision Date: 09 October 1975
• Docket Number: No. 39932,39932
• Citation: 194 Neb. 494,233 N.W.2d 900
• Parties: STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Robert Dean SPIDELL, Appellant.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 900

233 N.W.2d 900

194 Neb. 494

STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Robert Dean SPIDELL, Appellant.

No. 39932.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

Oct. 9, 1975.

Syllabus by the Court

1. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal prosecution, it is not the province of this court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence. Such matters are for the jury.

2. In order to come within the attorney-client privilege of section 25--1206, R.R.S.1943, the communication must have been between the attorney and client and made in the course of professional employment and with reference to the subject matter of that employment.

3. A communication between attorney and client made in the presence of others does not constitute a privileged communication within the meaning of section 25--1206, R.R.S.1943.

4. Where the evidence in a prosecution for burglary is such as to permit the jury to find that the defendant's participation with another in the crime was such as would make him at common law either an accessory before the fact, a principal in the second degree, or a principal, then it is proper to give an instruction on aiding and abetting under the provisions of section 28--201, R.R.S.1943.

T. Clement Gaughan, Public Defender, Richard L. Goos, Chief Deputy Public Defender, Lincoln, for appellant.

Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Steven C. Smith, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, and CLINTON, JJ., and KUNS, Retired District Judge.

CLINTON, Justice.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of the crime of burglary. He was sentenced to a term of 2 to 4 years in the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex. Upon this appeal he assigns the following errors: (1) The evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. (2) The trial court erred in admitting, over objection, rebuttal testimony by a deputy sheriff, relating statements made by the defendant within the hearing of that witness and in the presence of the defendant's attorney and the defendant's father, which statements contradicted explanations he had given on the witness stand. (3) The trial court erred in giving to the jury NJI No. 14.12, defining aiding and abetting. (4) The sentence is excessive. We affirm.

A brief and conclusory summary of the State's evidence disposes of the first assignment. The principal witness for the prosecution was one Jorstad, a confessed accomplice of the defendant in the burglary. Jorstad was apprehended by the police while in the act of burglarizing the Weaver service station at 2400 South 48th Street, Lincoln, Nebraska. Entry had been gained by breaking a window. Jorstad, a former employee of the Weaver station, knew where the combination of the Weaver safe was recorded. By means of that information, the safe was opened and the contents removed. At that point the burglary was interrupted by appearance of the police, who, during a routine check, observed activity within the building. Jorstad was arrested within the building. Shortly after his arrest he apparently advised the officers of the defendant's participation and the defendant was arrested a few minutes later a short distance away from the station, driving Jorstad's car away from the neighborhood. Jorstad's testimony indicated that the defendant was an actual participant in the burglary and suggested the burglary. The prosecution's theory explaining the failure to apprehend the defendant inside the building was that he had left unobserved through the broken window during the few minutes which elapsed while Jorstad lay on the floor of the station under police cover and during which time the two officers who discovered the burglary remained outside the station awaiting additional police help.

The defendant took the stand in his own defense and denied participation in and knowledge of the crime and gave innocent explanations for his presence in the area in Jorstad's automobile at the time of the arrest.

Clearly the above direct evidence was sufficient to create a jury question. In determining the sufficiency of evidence to sustain a conviction in a criminal prosecution, it is not the province of this court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence. Such matters are for the jury. State v. Cano, 191 Neb. 709, 217 N.W.2d 480; State v. Garza, 187 Neb. 407, 191 N.W.2d 454.

The second assignment of error arises from the following circumstances. The defendant testified that Jorstad, on the night of the burglary, loaned his car to the defendant at the defendant's place of residence, and then left the defendant's place in the company of another individual. He further testified that he then used Jorstad's car to take his sister to her home and performed other errands which accounted for his presence alone in Jorstad's car at the time and place of his arrest. To rebut in part defendant's testimony that he had not accompanied Jorstad that evening, the prosecution...