- 381 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

In re Guardianship of Patrick W., 

an incapacitated person. 

Becky S., appellee, v. 

Patrick W., appellant.

___ N.W.3d ___

Filed April 19, 2024. No. S-23-209.

1. Estates: Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews 

probate cases for error appearing on the record made in the county court. 

When reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the 

inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable.

2. Decedents’ Estates: Appeal and Error. An appellate court, in reviewing a probate court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will 

not substitute its factual findings for those of the probate court where 

competent evidence supports those findings.

3. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of 

law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.

4. Rules of Evidence: Hearsay: Appeal and Error. Apart from rulings 

under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for 

clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds.

5. Appeal and Error. In a de novo review, an appellate court reaches a 

conclusion independent of the trial court.

6. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. In construing a statute, a court must 

determine and give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature 

as ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered in its 

plain, ordinary, and popular sense.

7. Statutes. It is not within the province of a court to read a meaning into 

a statute that is not warranted by the statute’s language. Nor is it within 

the province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous 

out of a statute.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

07/10/2024 06:09 PM CDT
- 382 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

8. Statutes: Words and Phrases. Words and phrases in a statute shall be 

construed and understood according to the common and approved usage 

of the language; but technical words and phrases and such others as 

may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate meaning in the law shall 

be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.

9. Statutes. A court must give effect to all parts of a statute, and if it can 

be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be rejected as superfluous 

or meaningless.

10. Statutes: Legislature: Intent. Components of a series or collection of 

statutes pertaining to a certain subject matter are in pari materia and 

should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the 

intent of the Legislature, so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and sensible.

11. Statutes. When possible, a court will try to avoid a statutory construction that would lead to an absurd result.

12. ____. To the extent there is a conflict between two statutes, the specific 

statute controls over the general statute.

13. Guardians and Conservators: Guardians Ad Litem: Evidence. In 

guardianship proceedings, the information specifically described in the 

first sentence of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4204 (Reissue 2016) is admissible 

in evidence when the proponent shows such information or material (1) 

was obtained by the guardian ad litem informally or by subpoena and (2) 

is regarding the person for whom the guardian ad litem was appointed.

14. Appeal and Error. Conclusory assertions unsupported by coherent analytical argument fail to satisfy the requirement that an appellant’s brief 

must both specifically assign and specifically argue errors.

Appeal from the County Court for Saunders County: 

Andrew R. Lange, Judge. Affirmed.

Adaline K. Baker for appellant.

Heather S. Colton, of Pollack & Ball, L.L.C., for appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, 

Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.

Stacy, J.

Patrick W. appeals from an order of the county court finding 

him to be incapacitated and appointing a permanent guardian. He assigns error to the admission of an exhibit over his 
- 383 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

hearsay objection, and he argues that without that exhibit, 

the evidence was insufficient to show he is incapacitated. We 

affirm the county court’s order.

I. BACKGROUND

In 2009, Patrick suffered a stroke at the age of 32. In 

2014 or 2015, Adult Protective Services (APS), a division 

of the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, 

opened an investigation due to concerns about Patrick’s medical needs and financial management. After working with him 

for several years, an APS caseworker was concerned that 

Patrick was vulnerable to financial exploitation, self-neglect, 

and undue influence. The APS caseworker contacted an attorney to inquire about establishing a guardianship, and Becky 

Stamp was identified as someone who was willing to serve as 

Patrick’s guardian.

1. Petition for Guardianship

In 2022, Stamp filed a verified petition in the county court 

for Saunders County seeking to be appointed as Patrick’s 

temporary and permanent guardian. The petition alleged that 

Patrick was incapacitated due to a stroke and that he lacked 

sufficient understanding or capacity to make or communicate 

responsible decisions concerning his person and property. 1

The court appointed Stamp to serve as Patrick’s temporary 

guardian. A few months later, Patrick moved to substitute his 

cousin, Terry Crandall, as his temporary guardian, and the 

court granted that motion. The court also appointed an attorney to serve as Patrick’s guardian ad litem (GAL) and ordered 

Patrick to undergo a neuropsychological evaluation at a rehabilitation hospital.

In October 2022, the neuropsychological evaluation was 

completed, and a written report was prepared. The admissibility of that report is the primary issue on appeal.

1 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2601(1) (Reissue 2016) (defining incapacitated 

person).
- 384 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

2. Guardianship Hearing

An evidentiary hearing on the guardianship petition was 

held in January 2023. Stamp and Patrick both appeared for 

the hearing with counsel, and Patrick’s GAL was also present. The county court received several exhibits into evidence 

and heard testimony from six witnesses, including Patrick. As 

relevant to the issues on appeal, we summarize the witness 

testimony and discuss two of the hearing exhibits.

(a) GAL Report

The GAL did not testify at the hearing, but her report 

was admitted into evidence without objection after the parties agreed to redact certain statements within it. The GAL’s 

report recommended a full guardianship based on her opinion 

that without assistance, Patrick was not able to maintain safe 

and appropriate independent housing, arrange for his medical 

care and comply with medical instructions, protect his personal effects, apply for governmental benefits to which he may 

be entitled, or independently receive and manage his money 

and property.

The GAL described her personal observations that Patrick 

struggled to follow a consistent timeline and had difficulty 

answering questions and accurately recalling information and 

events. The GAL also expressed concern that Patrick would 

not talk or meet with her unless his roommate and landlord, 

Rodney Volker, was also present. The GAL noted that Patrick 

allowed Volker to speak for him and that Patrick appeared 

susceptible to Volker’s influence.

The GAL’s report stated that she had received and reviewed 

the neuropsychological evaluation report ordered by the court 

and believed the report supported her conclusion that a full 

guardianship was appropriate. The GAL’s report quoted several statements from the neuropsychological report, including that Patrick’s diagnosis was “Major Neurocognitive 

Disorder” and that Patrick’s neurological testing revealed 

“significant global impairment, including in the domains of 
- 385 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

attention/processing speed, language, memory, visuospatial functioning, and executive functioning” and “significant 

expressive aphasia.”

(b) Neuropsychological Report

At the start of the guardianship hearing, Patrick’s counsel 

moved in limine to exclude the neuropsychological report as 

inadmissible hearsay. In response, Stamp argued the report was 

admissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4204 (Reissue 2016), 

which provides, in relevant part:

The guardian ad litem may obtain, informally or by 

subpoena, the following information regarding the person for whom the guardian ad litem has been appointed: 

(1) A report from any medical provider [or] provider of 

psychological services . . . . Any material obtained by a 

guardian ad litem pursuant to this section is admissible 

in evidence.

The county court overruled Patrick’s motion in limine.

Later during the hearing, Patrick’s counsel renewed the 

hearsay objection when Stamp offered the neuropsychological 

report as an exhibit. Counsel argued that despite the admissibility provision in § 30-4204, “the rules of evidence still 

apply,” and counsel asked the court to exclude the report 

because it contained inadmissible hearsay. Stamp disagreed 

and reiterated her position that the report was admissible in 

evidence under the plain language of § 30-4204 because it 

was a medical or psychological report obtained by the GAL 

regarding the person for whom she was appointed. Before 

ruling on the objection, the court took a short recess for 

the stated purpose of giving the parties an opportunity to 

consult and agree to redactions of the neuropsychological 

report. After conferring, the parties advised the court they 

could not reach an agreement; the court overruled the hearsay 

objection and received the entire neuropsychological report 

into evidence.

As relevant to the issues on appeal, the neuropsychological 

report concluded that Patrick met the criteria for a diagnosis 
- 386 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

of “Major Neurocognitive Disorder Due to Another Medical 

Condition (history of a stroke), with Behavioral Disturbance.” 

The report also described that Patrick has “expressive aphasia” and struggles significantly to convey his thoughts, noting 

that during the neuropsychological evaluation, Patrick spoke 

very little, and when he did speak, the evaluator had difficulty understanding him. The report indicated that Patrick’s 

neuropsychological testing revealed significant global impairment in the domains of attention/processing speed, language, 

memory, visuospatial functioning, and executive functioning. 

In the evaluator’s clinical judgment, Patrick’s poor judgment 

and insight placed him at a “significantly increased risk” 

of emotional, financial, sexual, and other exploitation and 

manipulation. The neuropsychological report concluded:

Due to his current level of functioning, it is the clinical judgment of this provider that [Patrick] would best 

be served by the assignment of a permanent guardian to 

ensure facilitation of safe decision-making and to procure 

for ongoing needs. I can say with a reasonable degree of 

certainty that these deficits are unlikely to improve to the 

point where he would not need this level of support, given 

that it has been over 10 years since his stroke.

(c) Witness Testimony

(i) Stamp’s Case in Chief

During Stamp’s case in chief, three witnesses were called to 

testify. The APS caseworker testified about her history working 

with Patrick and her concern that his cognitive deficits caused 

him to neglect his own care. She also testified about concerns 

that Patrick was being financially exploited by Volker.

Stamp testified that she too was concerned about Volker’s 

financial influence on Patrick, explaining that during the time 

she served as Patrick’s temporary guardian, Volker “always 

called and asked for money. Never Patrick.” Stamp also testified that she was concerned about Patrick’s ability to maintain 

eligibility for Medicaid benefits without a guardian.
- 387 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

Crandall testified that while she served as Patrick’s temporary guardian, it was challenging to assess Patrick’s well-being 

because Volker was always present when she tried to talk with 

Patrick and Volker would influence the discussion. Crandall 

testified that Patrick would answer the telephone when she 

called but that “within the next minute or so, [Volker] is on the 

phone telling me what I will or what I will not do.” She also 

testified that there were instances where Volker had texted her 

from Patrick’s cell phone posing as Patrick. Crandall testified 

that she had known Patrick since he was 18 years old, and 

based on her interactions with him since 2022, she believed he 

needed a permanent guardianship.

(ii) Patrick’s Case in Chief

During Patrick’s case in chief, three witnesses were called 

to testify. Patrick testified on his own behalf. He generally 

opposed establishing a guardianship, explaining it was not 

something he needed. Patrick testified that Volker “helps 

[him] a lot” and that Volker is “a good accountant.” Some of 

Patrick’s testimony was difficult to follow and not responsive 

to the question being asked. For instance, when asked why he 

objected to the guardianship, Patrick stated:

Guardianship? Because it’s in — I do — I wake up, 

I go and take my meds, go to transportation, go to 

Walmart, groceries, back home, whatever — in and out. 

The kitchen, check the mail, and that’s it. So either — I 

don’t know, there’s nothing else. I mean, there’s making 

other friends, like making friends. I like it, so.

A witness, who described herself as a mutual friend of 

Patrick’s and Volker’s, testified that she had known Patrick 

for 2 or 3 years and had seen no evidence that Patrick could 

be taken advantage of in his current living situation. She testified that although Patrick was slow to answer questions, she 

thought his answers were appropriate. She also thought that 

since moving in with Volker, Patrick looked healthier and 

seemed happier than he was previously.
- 388 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

Volker testified that he had known Patrick for more than a 

decade and reconnected with him in 2021. When they reconnected, Volker observed Patrick to be “[w]orse than homeless,” and “[h]e was nothing like he is today.” Volker testified that Patrick does his own cooking, laundry, bedsheets, 

and vacuuming. Volker transported Patrick to appointments, 

to the grocery store, and to visit Patrick’s stepmother, and 

Patrick paid Volker for gas. Volker expressed concerns about 

Patrick’s ability to access funds if Crandall were to become 

his permanent guardian. Volker admitted to interfering with 

Patrick’s conversations with Crandall, but he did not think 

Patrick needed a guardian because “he’s just as normal as 

anybody else.”

At the close of the evidence, the court took the matter under 

advisement and requested written closing arguments.

3. County Court Order

In an order entered February 15, 2023, the court found clear 

and convincing evidence that Patrick was incapacitated. The 

court determined that a full guardianship was the least restrictive alternative available and appointed Crandall to serve as 

Patrick’s permanent guardian. Patrick filed this timely appeal, 

which we moved to our docket on our own motion.

II. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Patrick assigns, restated, that the county court erred in (1) 

receiving the neuropsychological report into evidence over his 

hearsay objection and (2) finding that he is incapacitated and 

that a full guardianship is the least restrictive means available 

to provide for his continuing care.

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court reviews probate cases for error 

appearing on the record made in the county court. 2 When 

reviewing a judgment for errors appearing on the record, the 

2 In re Guardianship of Jill G., 312 Neb. 108, 977 N.W.2d 913 (2022).
- 389 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

inquiry is whether the decision conforms to the law, is supported by competent evidence, and is neither arbitrary, capricious, nor unreasonable. 3

[2] An appellate court, in reviewing a probate court judgment for errors appearing on the record, will not substitute its 

factual findings for those of the probate court where competent 

evidence supports those findings. 4

[3] Statutory interpretation is a question of law, which an 

appellate court resolves independently of the trial court. 5

[4,5] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews 

de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence 

over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay 

grounds. 6 In a de novo review, an appellate court reaches a 

conclusion independent of the trial court. 7

IV. ANALYSIS

1. Admissibility of Materials Obtained 

Pursuant to § 30-4204

The primary issue on appeal is the admissibility of information and material obtained by a GAL pursuant to § 30-4204. 

That statute provides in full:

The guardian ad litem may obtain, informally or by 

subpoena, the following information regarding the person for whom the guardian ad litem has been appointed: 

(1) A report from any medical provider, provider of 

psychological services, law enforcement, [APS] agency, 

or financial institution; and (2) any account or record of 

3 Id.

4 In re Estate of Walker, 315 Neb. 510, 997 N.W.2d 595 (2023).

5 In re Guardianship of Jill G., supra note 2.

6 In re Estate of Walker, supra note 4.

7 Id.
- 390 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

any business, corporation, partnership, or other business 

entity which such person owns or in which such person 

has an interest. Any material obtained by a [GAL] pursuant to this section is admissible in evidence.

 8

Patrick does not dispute that the neuropsychological report 

at issue pertained to him, nor does he dispute that it is properly characterized as “[a] report from any medical provider 

[or] provider of psychological services” within the meaning of 

§ 30-4204. And although Patrick argues there was no evidence 

the GAL obtained the neuropsychological report pursuant to 

§ 30-4204, the record refutes that argument because the GAL’s 

report, which was admitted into evidence without objection, 

plainly lists the neuropsychological report as one of the reports 

obtained by the GAL as part of her investigation.

As such, the only disputed issue regarding § 30-4204 is the 

proper interpretation of the final sentence, which provides: 

“Any material obtained by a [GAL] pursuant to this section 

is admissible in evidence.” To address this issue, we begin by 

reviewing the familiar rules of statutory construction that guide 

our analysis.

[6-8] In construing a statute, a court must determine and 

give effect to the purpose and intent of the Legislature as 

ascertained from the entire language of the statute considered 

in its plain, ordinary, and popular sense. 9 It is not within the 

province of a court to read a meaning into a statute that is not 

warranted by the statute’s language. 10 Nor is it within the province of a court to read anything plain, direct, or unambiguous 

out of a statute. 11 Words and phrases in a statute “shall be construed and understood according to the common and approved 

8 § 30-4204 (emphasis supplied).

9 Angel v. Nebraska Dept. of Nat. Resources, 314 Neb. 1, 988 N.W.2d 507 

(2023).

10 See id.

11 See id.
- 391 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

usage of the language; but technical words and phrases and 

such others as may have acquired a peculiar and appropriate 

meaning in the law shall be construed and understood according to such peculiar and appropriate meaning.” 12

[9-12] A court must give effect to all parts of a statute, 

and if it can be avoided, no word, clause, or sentence will be 

rejected as superfluous or meaningless. 13 Components of a 

series or collection of statutes pertaining to a certain subject 

matter are in pari materia and should be conjunctively considered and construed to determine the intent of the Legislature, 

so that different provisions are consistent, harmonious, and 

sensible. 14 When possible, a court will try to avoid a statutory 

construction that would lead to an absurd result. 15 To the extent 

there is a conflict between two statutes, the specific statute 

controls over the general statute. 16

With these principles in mind, we turn to the arguments of 

the parties.

(a) Arguments of Parties

Patrick argues that courts should not construe the last sentence of § 30-4204 to preclude applicability of the Nebraska 

Evidence Rules and, in particular, the hearsay rules when 

determining the admissibility of information and materials 

obtained by a GAL. Patrick urges us to construe the phrase 

“admissible in evidence” to mean “anything admissible under 

the court’s Rules of Evidence.” 17

Stamp disagrees. At oral argument before this court, Stamp’s 

counsel argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of the 

12 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 49-802(5) (Reissue 2021).

13 In re Guardianship of Nicholas H., 309 Neb. 1, 958 N.W.2d 661 (2021).

14 Id.

15 See Thomas v. Peterson, 307 Neb. 89, 948 N.W.2d 698 (2020).

16 State v. Simons, 315 Neb. 415, 996 N.W.2d 607 (2023).

17 Brief for appellant at 11.
- 392 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

statutory phrase “admissible in evidence” means “proper to 

be received” in evidence. She generally described the admissibility provision in § 30-4204 as a “carve out” to the rules of 

evidence, and she argued that when the conditions of the statute are met, the materials specifically described in § 30-4204 

can properly be admitted into evidence over a hearsay objection. To support this argument, Stamp’s appellate brief generally relies on our 2022 opinion in In re Guardianship of 

Jill G. 18

The issue in In re Guardianship of Jill G. was the admissibility of a GAL’s written report. That report was 8 pages 

long and included as an attachment approximately 80 pages 

of material the GAL had obtained pursuant to § 30-4204. 

When the petitioner offered the GAL’s report with attachments, the court sustained the respondent’s hearsay objections 

and refused to receive the exhibit into evidence. The petitioner 

tried several more times to offer the exhibit without success, 

but at no time did she attempt to separately offer only the 

materials obtained pursuant to § 30-4204. On appeal, the petitioner argued the court erred in failing to admit the entire GAL 

report under § 30-4204.

We found no error in that case, reasoning that the plain 

terms of the admissibility provision in § 30-4204 referenced 

only the materials a GAL is empowered to obtain as part of 

his or her investigation and “does not pertain to a report created by a GAL.” 19 We noted that GAL reports are governed by 

a separate statute that, unlike § 30-4204, contains no provision 

governing admissibility. 20 The opinion in In re Guardianship 

of Jill G. emphasized that it is “the proponent’s responsibility 

to separate the admissible and inadmissible parts” of an exhibit 

and noted that “[w]hen part of an exhibit is inadmissible, a 

18 In re Guardianship of Jill G., supra note 2.

19 Id. at 113, 977 N.W.2d at 918.

20 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-4205 (Reissue 2016).
- 393 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

trial court has discretion to reject the exhibit entirely or to 

admit the admissible portion.” 21 Because the petitioner in In 

re Guardianship of Jill G. had not separately offered just the 

materials obtained by the GAL pursuant to § 30-4204, we 

found no abuse of discretion in refusing to admit the entire 

GAL report. And we expressly declined to separately consider 

the admissibility of the information and materials obtained by 

the GAL pursuant to § 30-4204.

Although our opinion in In re Guardianship of Jill G. did 

not address whether materials obtained by a GAL pursuant to 

§ 30-4204 are admissible over a hearsay objection, we moved 

the instant appeal to our docket to address that question. We 

turn to it now.

(b) Resolution

Section 30-4204 contains two sentences, and we consider 

them both when construing the meaning of the statute. The first 

sentence describes several categories of information that GALs 

are authorized to obtain, either informally or by subpoena, 

regarding the person for whom they have been appointed. And 

the second sentence of the statute provides, without further 

condition, that “[a]ny material obtained by a guardian ad litem 

pursuant to this section is admissible in evidence.” 22

Black’s Law Dictionary defines “admissible” as “[c]apable 

of being legally admitted; allowable; permissible,” 23 and it 

defines “admissible evidence” as “[e]vidence that is relevant 

and is of such a character . . . that the court should receive 

it.” 24 We think these common definitions are appropriately 

applied to the phrase “admissible in evidence” as it is used 

in § 30-4204. As we will explain, in enacting § 30-4204, we 

21 In re Guardianship of Jill G., supra note 2, 312 Neb. at 114-15, 977 

N.W.2d at 918-19.

22 § 30-4204.

23 Black’s Law Dictionary 58 (11th ed. 2019).

24 Id. at 698.
- 394 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

understand the Legislature to have determined that it is “allowable” or “permissible” for a court to admit into evidence the 

materials specifically described in the statute, but that the 

admission of such materials is not mandatory.

We consider it significant that, unlike admissibility provisions found elsewhere in the Nebraska statutes, the admissibility language in § 30-4204 is neither mandatory, 25 nor 

expressly conditioned on compliance with the Nebraska 

Evidence Rules. 26 Instead, the plain language of § 30-4204 

makes the information specifically described in the first sentence of the statute “admissible in evidence” without further 

qualification. We see no ambiguity in the phrase “admissible 

in evidence,” and we construe it according to its plain language and its common usage in the law to mean that courts 

are permitted, but not required, to receive such information 

into evidence.

As such, although Patrick is correct that the Nebraska 

Evidence Rules generally apply in probate proceedings, we 

reject his argument that the phrase “admissible in evidence” 

in § 30-4204 must be construed to mean otherwise admissible 

25 Cf., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 13-2805 (Reissue 2022) (providing “the book 

or pamphlet shall be received as evidence”); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 15-735 

(Reissue 2022) (providing certified copy “shall be received in evidence as 

prima facie evidence of the regularity of all proceedings in the matter”); 

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 21-1404 (Reissue 2022) (providing certified copies of 

articles of incorporation “shall be received in all the courts of this state 

as prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein and of the due 

incorporation of such association”).

26 Cf., Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-402 (Reissue 2016) (providing “[a]ll relevant 

evidence is admissible except as otherwise provided by” federal or state 

Constitution, federal or state statutes, other rules of evidence, or rules of 

Nebraska Supreme Court); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-412 (2)(a) (Cum. Supp. 

2022) (providing that evidence described in statute “is admissible, if 

otherwise admissible under the Nebraska Evidence Rules”); Neb. Rev. 

Stat. § 27-1005 (Reissue 2016) (providing that contents of official record 

“if otherwise admissible” may be proved through evidence described in 

statute).
- 395 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

under the rules of evidence. The construction urged by Patrick 

would require that we read qualifying language into the statute that was not included by the Legislature. Instead, to the 

extent the admissibility provision in § 30-4204 conflicts 

with the rules of evidence, we conclude that § 30-4204 is 

the more specific provision, and thus controls over the more 

general statutes. 27

[13] We now hold that in guardianship proceedings, the 

information specifically described in the first sentence of 

§ 30-4204 is admissible in evidence when the proponent shows 

such information or material (1) was obtained by the GAL 

informally or by subpoena and (2) is regarding the person for 

whom the GAL was appointed.

A trial court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence is 

reviewed for an abuse of discretion, 28 and on this record, we 

find no abuse of discretion in admitting the neuropsychological report pursuant to § 30-4204 over Patrick’s hearsay objection. In fact, we note that Nebraska’s hearsay rule expressly 

contemplates the possibility that “other rules adopted by the 

statutes of the State of Nebraska” might render admissible 

what would otherwise be considered inadmissible hearsay 

under the rules of evidence. 29

The record shows that the neuropsychological report is a 

medical or psychological report obtained by the GAL regarding the person for whom she was appointed, and thus fits 

squarely within the categories of information identified in 

27 See Simons, supra note 16.

28 See, generally, Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 10 v. Tribedo, LLC, 307 Neb. 

716, 950 N.W.2d 599 (2020).

29 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 2016). See, also, In re Guardianship 

of Jill G., supra note 2, 312 Neb. at 113, 977 at 918 (noting “[w]e have 

applied the principle that in the absence of admissibility authorized by the 

Nebraska Evidence Rules or by other statute as a nonhearsay statement or 

statements otherwise exempted or excluded from the operation or purview 

of the ‘hearsay rule,’. . . a hearsay statement will be excluded”).
- 396 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

§ 30-4204. Because the conditions of the statute were met, the 

trial court was permitted to admit the report into evidence, and 

it did not abuse its discretion in doing so. Patrick’s first assignment of error has no merit.

2. Sufficiency of Evidence

[14] Patrick’s second assignment of error is that there was 

insufficient evidence adduced to support the county court’s 

finding that he is incapacitated and that a full guardianship 

is the least restrictive alternative. He argues that “[t]he only 

evidence offered showing [he] might have a mental deficiency” was the neuropsychological report. 30 And he contends 

that without that report, “there is no evidence that [he has] a 

mental deficiency that affects his ability to understand or the 

capacity to make or communicate decisions for himself.” 31

Although Patrick’s brief alludes to other alleged deficiencies 

in the evidence, we do not discuss them, because conclusory 

assertions unsupported by coherent analytical argument fail to 

satisfy the requirement that an appellant’s brief must both specifically assign and specifically argue errors. 32 We therefore 

confine our analysis to Patrick’s argument that without the 

neuropsychological report, there was insufficient evidence to 

support the court’s guardianship.

We reject this argument as meritless. As we have already 

explained, it was proper for the court to admit the neuropsychological report into evidence. And our review of the 

record, including the neuropsychological report, shows ample 

evidence to support the court’s finding that Patrick is incapacitated and that a full guardianship is the least restrictive 

alternative to provide for his continuing care or supervision. 33

30 Brief for appellant at 15.

31 Id.

32 See, State v. Boppre, 315 Neb. 203, 995 N.W.2d 28 (2023); State v. Trail, 

312 Neb. 843, 981 N.W.2d 269 (2022).

33 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 30-2620 (Reissue 2016).
- 397 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

316 Nebraska Reports

IN RE GUARDIANSHIP OF PATRICK W.

Cite as 316 Neb. 381

The court’s decision conformed to the law, was supported by 

competent evidence, and was neither arbitrary, capricious, nor 

unreasonable.

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the order of the county 

court.

Affirmed.