State v. Pittman
State v. Pittman
Opinion of the Court
Defendant appeals her conviction of violating ordinance No. 25.133.020 of the city of Omaha. We affirm.
This is a companion case to State v. Brown, No. 39150, ante p. 61, 213 N. W. 2d 712. In this case, however, the officer did not see the performance of the act. Rather, he described the position of the parties and the state of undress which suggested an interruption of the act. In any event, the evidence clearly indicated unlawful conduct within the provisions of the ordinance.
Defendant has raised the same three assignments of error discussed in State v. Brown, supra. What we said there is equally applicable herein as to the first two assignments of error.
Defendant’s third assignment of error is that the sentence imposed on her was excessive. Mary Rose Brown
The judgment is affirmed as modified.
Affirmed as modified.
Dissenting Opinion
dissenting.
I dissent. The ordinance is so vague and contains so many constitutional infirmities as to be void on its face.
Reference
- Full Case Name
- State of Nebraska v. Tracy Pittman
- Status
- Published