Thompson v. State

• Decision Date: 22 October 1909
• Docket Number: 16,276
• Citation: 122 N.W. 986,85 Neb. 244
• Parties: HUGH THOMPSON v. STATE OF NEBRASKA
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

122 N.W. 986

85 Neb. 244

HUGH THOMPSON v. STATE OF NEBRASKA

No. 16,276

Supreme Court of Nebraska

October 22, 1909

ERROR to the district court for Richardson county: JOHN B. RAPER JUDGE. Affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

J. E Leyda, for plaintiff in error.

William T. Thompson, Attorney General, and George W. Ayres, contra.

OPINION

BARNES, J.

Hugh Thompson, hereafter called the defendant, was convicted of the crime of robbery from the person, and was sentenced by the district court for Richardson county to serve a term of three years in the state penitentiary. To reverse that judgment he has prosecuted error to this court.

1. His first contention is that the verdict is not sustained by sufficient evidence. We have read the bill of exceptions with great care, and find that the testimony of the complaining witness is clear as to the fact of the robbery and that he positively identified the defendant as the man who robbed him. It also appears that he is corroborated by one John Hoppe, who was with him at the time the robbery occurred. The evidence for the prosecution discloses that the prosecuting witness and his companion Hoppe, at about the hour of 11 o'clock P. M. of the day of the robbery, were on their way to Hoppe's home in Falls City, where they intended to spend the night; that they were approached by the defendant and another, and after some conversation they all started to the Burlington and Missouri depot; that on the way the prosecuting witness asked for a match with which to light his pipe; that the defendant produced a match, and held his coat as a wind shield, and the witness placed his head inside the shield to light his pipe, when he was struck on the head by the defendant, was knocked down, and two silver dollars, which he had exposed to the defendant's view when he took out his pipe and tobacco, were taken from him. While it appears that all of the parties had been drinking intoxicating liquor to some extent, and that Hoppe was somewhat intoxicated, yet he and the complaining witness both seemed to have a pretty clear comprehension of what occurred. It was also shown that the defendant wore but one coat, which was an overcoat, although it was then the latter part of December; that he had a mark or abrasion on his face which was quite noticeable. These were matters which were observed by several witnesses, who were thus enabled to identify him. Other witnesses testified that they saw the defendant and his companion at a restaurant, about the saloons, and on the streets of Falls City on the evening in question shortly before and soon after the robbery occurred. This evidence, if believed by the jury, was sufficient to sustain the verdict. On the other hand, the defendant and his companion denied the robbery, testified that they did not see the prosecuting witness prior to the time he complains of having been robbed, and did not see him or know him at all until the following day, and after they were arrested and confined in jail on the charge in question. They also testified that they did not arrive in Falls City until about 9 o'clock P. M. on the day the offense was committed; that they boarded a freight train at about 12 o'clock that night and went to Hiawatha, Kansas, returning the next morning to Falls City. It will thus be observed that, according to their own statements, they were in Falls City when the robbery was committed, and so the only conflict in the evidence relates to the question of the identity of the person who committed the...