State v. Gilman

Nebraska Supreme Court

State v. Gilman

148 N.W.2d 847, 181 Neb. 390, 1967 Neb. LEXIS 558

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 24, 1967

DocketNo. 36406

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 148 N.W.2d 847 (State v. Gilman) 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. Gilman, 148 N.W.2d 847, 181 Neb. 390, 1967 Neb. LEXIS 558 (Neb. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Smith, J.

Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle after suspension of his operator’s license without reinstatement, second offense. An appeal having been taken to the district court, a jury found him guilty. The court determined that the violation was a second offense, and it imposed sentence. Defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment and in denying probation.

The complaint was unverified, but defendant first raised the question by the motion after verdict. A defective verification is subject to a motion to quash or a plea in abatement. A defendant who pleads the general issue without raising the question, however, waives the defect. See, §§ 29-610, 29-1808, 29-1812, 29-2104, and 29-2105, R. R. S. 1943; State v. Ninneman, 179 Neb. 729, 140 N. W. 2d 5; Morrow v. State, 140 Neb. 592, 300 N. W. 843; Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 247, 47 N. W. 854. Overruling defendant’s motion was correct.

The action of the district court in imposing sentence and denying probation will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows an abuse of discretion. State v. Steinhausen, 180 Neb. 778, 145 N. W. 2d 584. The sentence in the present case was clearly within judicial discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

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

Smith, J.

Defendant was charged with operating a motor vehicle after suspension of his operator’s license without reinstatement, second offense. An appeal having been taken to the district court, a jury found him guilty. The court determined that the violation was a second offense, and it imposed sentence. Defendant contends on appeal that the court erred in overruling a motion in arrest of judgment and in denying probation.

The complaint was unverified, but defendant first raised the question by the motion after verdict. A defective verification is subject to a motion to quash or a plea in abatement. A defendant who pleads the general issue without raising the question, however, waives the defect. See, §§ 29-610, 29-1808, 29-1812, 29-2104, and 29-2105, R. R. S. 1943; State v. Ninneman, 179 Neb. 729, 140 N. W. 2d 5; Morrow v. State, 140 Neb. 592, 300 N. W. 843; Davis v. State, 31 Neb. 247, 47 N. W. 854. Overruling defendant’s motion was correct.

The action of the district court in imposing sentence and denying probation will not be disturbed on appeal unless the record shows an abuse of discretion. State v. Steinhausen, 180 Neb. 778, 145 N. W. 2d 584. The sentence in the present case was clearly within judicial discretion.

The judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

148 N.W.2d 847, 181 Neb. 390, 1967 Neb. LEXIS 558, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-gilman-neb-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack