Bradehorst v. State

Nebraska Supreme Court

Bradehorst v. State

95 N.W.2d 495, 168 Neb. 203, 1959 Neb. LEXIS 19

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 20, 1959

DocketNo. 34457

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 N.W.2d 495 (Bradehorst v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bradehorst v. State, 95 N.W.2d 495, 168 Neb. 203, 1959 Neb. LEXIS 19 (Neb. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

Carter, J.

The plaintiff in error, subsequently referred to as defendant, was' convicted in the district court for Otoe: County oh the charge of breaking and entering. A sentence of 2 to 4 years in the Nebraska State Reformatory was imposed. by the .trial court. Defendant seeks a review in this court. -

The only error assigned is thát the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s plea in abatement for the reason that .the evidence was insufficient to justify the-examining magistrate holding the defendant for trial in the district court. ’ ’

There is no bill of exceptions. This court has consistently held - that, to review a decision of" the trial court on- error proceedings in' a criminal case on a question of fact, it is essential that such evidence be preserved in a proper bill of exceptions. The evidence introduced on the hearing of issues of fact formed by a plea in abatement in a criminal case and the State’s answer thereto cannot be reviewed here unless preserved in a bill of exceptions. Burnham v. State, 127 Neb. 370, 255 N. W. 48. In the absence of a bill of exceptions the only issue that can be considered on review by this court is the sufficiency of the pleadings to sustain the judgment. Benedict v. State, 166 Neb. 295, 89 N. W. 2d 82. The pleadings clearly sustain the judgment.

We conclude that defendant’s contentions as shown by his assignment of error are not before us for consideration and the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.'':'1

Affirmed.'

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Carter, J.

The plaintiff in error, subsequently referred to as defendant, was' convicted in the district court for Otoe: County oh the charge of breaking and entering. A sentence of 2 to 4 years in the Nebraska State Reformatory was imposed. by the .trial court. Defendant seeks a review in this court. -

The only error assigned is thát the trial court erred in overruling defendant’s plea in abatement for the reason that .the evidence was insufficient to justify the-examining magistrate holding the defendant for trial in the district court. ’ ’

There is no bill of exceptions. This court has consistently held - that, to review a decision of" the trial court on- error proceedings in' a criminal case on a question of fact, it is essential that such evidence be preserved in a proper bill of exceptions. The evidence introduced on the hearing of issues of fact formed by a plea in abatement in a criminal case and the State’s answer thereto cannot be reviewed here unless preserved in a bill of exceptions. Burnham v. State, 127 Neb. 370, 255 N. W. 48. In the absence of a bill of exceptions the only issue that can be considered on review by this court is the sufficiency of the pleadings to sustain the judgment. Benedict v. State, 166 Neb. 295, 89 N. W. 2d 82. The pleadings clearly sustain the judgment.

We conclude that defendant’s contentions as shown by his assignment of error are not before us for consideration and the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.'':'1

Affirmed.'

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 N.W.2d 495, 168 Neb. 203, 1959 Neb. LEXIS 19, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradehorst-v-state-neb-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack