State v. Franklin

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Franklin

307 N.W.2d 513, 209 Neb. 281, 1981 Neb. LEXIS 907

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedJune 26, 1981

Docket43652

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 307 N.W.2d 513 (State v. Franklin) 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

State v. Franklin, 307 N.W.2d 513, 209 Neb. 281, 1981 Neb. LEXIS 907 (Neb. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Krivosha, C.J.

*282 The appellant, Earl L. Franklin, appeals from a judgment based upon a conviction of guilt returned by a jury after trial. Franklin was convicted of the crimes of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to a term of 4 to 6 years on the robbery charge and 2 to 4 years on the use of a firearm charge, to be served consecutively to the robbery sentence. Franklin raises but a single issue in this appeal. He maintains that a conviction for a crime which is based solely upon uncorroborated eyewitness identification is insufficient. The disposition of this case is governed by our opinion in State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 812, 813-14, 305 N.W.2d 812, 814 (1981), wherein we reaffirmed our earlier position and said: “It has long been the rule in this state that except in certain crimes such as sexual assault, a conviction may rest upon the testimony of a single eyewitness.” Our holding in Ammons is dispositive of this appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Krivosha, C.J.

*282 The appellant, Earl L. Franklin, appeals from a judgment based upon a conviction of guilt returned by a jury after trial. Franklin was convicted of the crimes of robbery and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. He was sentenced to a term of 4 to 6 years on the robbery charge and 2 to 4 years on the use of a firearm charge, to be served consecutively to the robbery sentence. Franklin raises but a single issue in this appeal. He maintains that a conviction for a crime which is based solely upon uncorroborated eyewitness identification is insufficient. The disposition of this case is governed by our opinion in State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 812, 813-14, 305 N.W.2d 812, 814 (1981), wherein we reaffirmed our earlier position and said: “It has long been the rule in this state that except in certain crimes such as sexual assault, a conviction may rest upon the testimony of a single eyewitness.” Our holding in Ammons is dispositive of this appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 N.W.2d 513, 209 Neb. 281, 1981 Neb. LEXIS 907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-franklin-neb-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack