From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

DeBacker v. Brainard

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Oct 4, 1968
183 Neb. 461 (Neb. 1968)

Summary

explaining that "[f]our judges are of the opinion that the [juvenile court] statute is unconstitutional as challenged. Three judges are of the opinion that it is constitutional. Article V, section 2, Constitution of Nebraska, provides in part: ‘No legislative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five judges,’ " and affirming district court's judgment

Summary of this case from Sanders v. Frakes

Opinion

No. 36989.

Filed October 4, 1968.

Appeal from the district court for Dodge County: ROBERT L. FLORY, Judge. Affirmed.

Kerrigan, Line Martin, for appellant.

Richard L. Kuhlman, for appellee.

Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Melvin K. Kammerlohr, for amicus curiae.

Heard before WHITE, C.J., CARTER, SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, SMITH, McCOWN, and NEWTON, JJ.


The petitioner was found to be a delinquent child and ordered committed to the Boys' Training School at Kearney. The facts alleged as the basis for the charge of delinquency constituted the crime of forgery if he had been charged under the, general criminal laws. Petitioner asserts that section 43-206.03, R. S. Supp., 1967, a part of the Juvenile Court Act, is unconstitutional in that it denies him the right of a jury trial, and applies a "preponderance of the evidence" rule rather than a "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule to the adjudication of delinquency.

Four judges are of the opinion that the statute is unconstitutional as challenged. Three judges are of the opinion that it is constitutional. Article V, section 2, Constitution of Nebraska, provides in part: "No legislative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five judges."

The petition for habeas corpus here was dismissed by the district court. That judgment, must, therefore, be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

DeBacker v. Brainard

Supreme Court of Nebraska
Oct 4, 1968
183 Neb. 461 (Neb. 1968)

explaining that "[f]our judges are of the opinion that the [juvenile court] statute is unconstitutional as challenged. Three judges are of the opinion that it is constitutional. Article V, section 2, Constitution of Nebraska, provides in part: ‘No legislative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five judges,’ " and affirming district court's judgment

Summary of this case from Sanders v. Frakes

In DeBacker v. Brainard, 183 Neb. 461, 161 N.W.2d 508, (Oct. 4, 1968), appeal dismissed, Nov. 12, 1969, 396 U.S. 28, 24 L.Ed.2d 148, 90 S.Ct. 163, four of the seven justices of the Nebraska Supreme Court thought the right to trial by jury should be extended to juvenile court delinquency proceedings; however, because of the requirement of the Nebraska constitution that "No legislative act shall be held unconstitutional except by the concurrence of five judges" (Neb.

Summary of this case from In re Fucini

In DeBacker v. Brainard, 183 Neb. 461, 161 N.W.2d 508 (1968), the question discussed at length and with vigor was whether, under Gault, there is a constitutional requirement of a trial by jury, a problem not relevant here since Santana had a jury.

Summary of this case from State v. Santana

In DeBacker v. Brainard, 183 Neb. 461, 161 N.W.2d 508 (1968), the majority of the Supreme Court of Nebraska concluded that a statute depriving juveniles of a jury trial in a juvenile proceeding was unconstitutional in the light of Gault, yet the statute was upheld because more than a majority of the court was required to declare it unconstitutional.

Summary of this case from In re Johnson
Case details for

DeBacker v. Brainard

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE J. DeBACKER, APPELLANT, v. HOMER BRAINARD, SHERIFF OF DODGE…

Court:Supreme Court of Nebraska

Date published: Oct 4, 1968

Citations

183 Neb. 461 (Neb. 1968)
161 N.W.2d 508

Citing Cases

State v. Zoie H. (In re Zoie H.)

Due to the absence of a supermajority under Neb. Const. art. V, § 2, this court affirmed the dismissal of the…

State v. Santana

" In DeBacker v. Brainard, 183 Neb. 461, 161 N.W.2d 508 (1968), the question discussed at length and with…