Title: State v. Wells
Citation: 229 Neb. 89, 425 N.W.2d 338
Docket Number: 674, 678
State: Nebraska
Issuer: Nebraska Supreme Court
Date: July 1, 1988

425 N.W.2d 338 (1988) 229 Neb. 89 STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. James A. WELLS, Appellant. No. 87-674. Supreme Court of Nebraska. July 1, 1988. *339 Thomas M. Kenney, Douglas County Public Defender, and Brian S. Munnelly, for appellant. Robert M. Spire, Atty. Gen., and Steven J. Moeller, for appellee. HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ. CAPORALE, Justice. A jury found defendant, James A. Wells, guilty of first degree sexual assault, a violation *340 of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 28-319(1)(a) (Reissue 1985); he was so adjudged and thereafter sentenced. In this appeal he asserts the district court erred in (1) receiving certain evidence and (2) permitting the prosecutor to inquire into and comment upon his silence during the investigation of the crime. We reverse and remand for a new trial. On June 5, 1986, following separation from her husband, the victim, R.L., and her 14-year-old daughter took up residence in a downtown Omaha apartment building. R.L.'s was a second-floor apartment overlooking the roof of an adjoining one-story portion of the structure, this roof being about 18 inches below the level of the living room window to her apartment. Elevators in the building cannot be activated without a security code, and the stairwells above the lobby level are locked from the direction of entry. On the second night of her residence at the apartment building, the victim was awakened by the phone at 1 o'clock in the morning. Once awake, she noticed that her daughter was not in the apartment. Moments later, a man tried to enter her apartment through the open living room window; he was apparently startled to find R.L. awake, asked for her daughter, and immediately exited. R.L. began to search for her daughter, starting with the neighboring apartment of one Ron Cichowski, whom R.L. had met when she moved into the apartment building. Cichowski's apartment was also on the second floor, directly across the roof from R.L.'s living room. R.L. found her daughter in Cichowski's bathroom; the daughter was drunk and lost consciousness shortly thereafter. Also found in the bathroom with her daughter was the defendant. At this time, R.L. recognized defendant as the person who moments earlier had attempted to enter her apartment. After taking the daughter to her apartment and putting the daughter in bed, R.L. returned to Cichowski's apartment to talk to him about her daughter's intoxication. Defendant was still in Cichowski's apartment at this time but, according to R.L., kept his back to her and left shortly after she returned. Two days later, at R.L.'s instance, the daughter was made a ward of the state and resided in various care facilities thereafter through the time of trial. Cecil Walker, a friend of Cichowski's, had been present in Cichowski's apartment the night and morning the victim's daughter was found in Cichowski's bathroom. Walker testified that the daughter went to Cichowski's apartment sometime after 8 or 9 p.m. and drank beer with Walker, Cichowski, and defendant, who had arrived about an hour after the daughter. Walker also testified that the defendant remained in the apartment throughout approximately 1½ hours of the victim's discussion of the drinking incident with Cichowski, although the victim did not speak to defendant directly during this period. Walker also testified that later that morning, he found defendant on the fire escape above Cichowski's bedroom window. The victim subsequently encountered defendant for a brief period, but the two did not speak. The day following the attempted entry into the victim's apartment, she and a friend secured the living room window with boards. However, the building manager removed the boards from the living room window on June 10, assuring R.L. that although the window lacked working locks, it was impossible for anyone to gain entry as long as the window was closed because "there were only handles on the inside...." On July 26, 1986, the victim rose a few moments after hearing a noise at approximately 2:20 a.m. and turned on the bathroom light. After she examined the living room window and noted that the outer casement window and the inner screen were both secure, she returned to bed. The victim was awakened later that morning and found that "there was a man on top of me and he didn't have any clothes on. I was sleeping on my back and when I woke up he was probablyI don't knowa few inches away from my face." The bathroom *341 light shone dimly into the victim's bedroom; as soon as she awoke, the man ordered her to roll over on her stomach, and she complied. The victim was wearing a nightgown, underwear, and knee socks. Her underwear had been cut in two in the crotch area, apparently before she awoke. The man ordered the victim to remove her nightgown, and after she complied, he raped her. After "five or ten minutes," the rapist withdrew, ordered the victim to remain on her stomach, and dressed. At one point the victim turned her head enough to see the man putting on blue jeans. She testified: The victim immediately put her nightgown back on and went to a friend's apartment on an upper floor at the building, and police officers were summoned. Upon investigation, it was discovered that the screen in the victim's living room window had been cut from the frame on two sides. An examination of the victim conducted at 6:55 that same morning revealed the presence of sperm cells in the fluid samples taken from her. The victim described the rapist as white, of small to medium build, about 5 feet 6 inches tall, with shoulder-length "blondish-brown" hair. The victim also thought the rapist must be someone who knew her, because few people knew which of her windows was not secured with boards, and because she felt she had heard the rapist's voice before, although in court she was unable to positively identify defendant as her attacker. Suspicion first focused on defendant's brother, Robert Wells, whom the victim had met briefly and whom she thought had a voice rather like the rapist's. However, 4 days after the rape, R.L. was unable to identify Robert Wells' voice as being that of the rapist. About a week after the rape, the victim considered the possibility that defendant had raped her; however, although she discussed this possibility with the investigating police officers, she at that time discounted the thought because A forensic serologist with the Nebraska State Patrol crime laboratory testified that in approximately 80 percent of cases, it is possible to determine a person's blood type by analyzing saliva, semen, or vaginal fluid. It is also possible to determine which of 10 different isomers of the enzyme phosphoglucomutase (PGM) is present in samples of blood, seminal fluid, and vaginal fluid. The serologist further testified that analysis of semen stains found on the victim's bedsheet and nightclothes indicated that the rapist had type B blood and a type of PGM known as PGM 2 + 2 +. The victim's blood type is O, and she has PGM 1. Analysis of a sample of defendant's blood indicated that *342 he has type B blood and PGM 2 + 2+; analysis of a sample of his saliva confirmed these findings and, in addition, indicated that defendant is a "secretor," that is, one whose blood type and PGM status can be determined by examination of body fluids other than blood, particularly semen, vaginal fluid, and saliva. According to the serologist, secretors make up 77 percent of the white male population, type B blood is found in 11 percent of the white male population, and PGM 2 + 2 + is found in 3 percent of the white male population. The likelihood of finding a white male who is a secretor with type B blood and PGM 2 + 2 + is approximately 1 chance in 1,000. Cross-examination revealed that analysis of samples taken from defendant's brother indicated that the brother, too, is a secretor with type B blood and PGM 2 + 2 +; the test results were identical for the defendant and his brother. The serologist also testified that one pubic hair taken from the victim's bedsheet matched known samples of both defendant's pubic hair and that of his brother. Spermatozoa were found in the semen stains taken from the victim's bedsheet and nightclothes. A urologist testified that he had performed a vasectomy on defendant's brother on October 12,1983; there were no complications; and following this surgery, two separate sample analyses indicated that there were no spermatozoa in the brother's semen. The urologist's most recent analysis of a semen sample from the brother was made on January 11, 1984. Following a vasectomy, spontaneous reconnection of the vas, leading to a renewed ability to ejaculate spermatozoa, occurs in less than 1 percent of cases in which no other complications are noted; the urologist had encountered no such case in his 10 years of practice. Following these discoveries, attention shifted to defendant. On November 5, 1986, defendant was arrested on outstanding traffic warrants and briefly held in the Omaha jail. The record does not disclose whether defendant received Miranda warnings at this time; Omaha Police Detective Michael Hoch testified only that on November 5, 1986, he "advis[ed] [defendant] that he was going to be placed in custody because of outstanding traffic warrants." The prosecutor, during an in camera conference, stated that "there were no Miranda Rights given that day and that is clear from the reports and from my discussions with Officer Hoch. He didn't advise him of his Miranda Rights." However, no testimony to this effect was adduced. On November 12, 1986, Hoch met with defendant at his place of employment and requested a saliva sample, which defendant provided. While defendant was not placed under arrest at this time, he was arrested again on December 17, 1986, and charged with the crime giving rise to this appeal. At trial, the prosecutor, over defendant's strenuous objections, engaged Hoch in the following dialogue: "Q Officer Hoch, on November 5, 1986, did you attempt to talk to [defendant] concerning the sexual assault of [R.L.]? ... [Hoch] Yes." Upon cross-examination, defendant's attorney adduced the following testimony from Hoch regarding defendant's November 5, 1986, arrest on outstanding traffic warrants: And further, regarding the saliva sample taken on November 12, 1986: "Q Again, did he have to give you that? [Hoch] No. Q He voluntarily and cooperatively gave it to you? [Hoch] Yes." Following close of the State's case, defendant moved for dismissal of the charge, arguing that the State had failed to establish a prima facie case. The district court overruled the motion. Defendant then took the stand and testified that he spent the evening of July 25, 1986, in the company of a friend and coworker named Marlin, returning to his brother's house in Carter Lake, Iowa, around 2:30 on the morning of July 26, 1986, whereupon he went to bed and slept until 10 or 11 that morning. Defendant also testified that he had never had a vasectomy and was, as far as he knew, fertile as of the time of trial; that he had been the person [R.L.] had seen crawl through her living room window on June 6, 1986; and that he had been the person Walker had seen later that morning on the fire escape outside Cichowski's apartment. Upon cross-examination, the State's attorney adduced the following testimony from defendant, once again over defendant's strenuous objection: Defendant again moved for a dismissal at the close of all the evidence; the motion was again overruled. In his closing argument to the jury, the prosecutor stated: No instructions were given by the trial court limiting the jury's use of the evidence regarding defendant's refusal to discuss R.L.'s rape with Hoch. Defendant first assigns the receipt of evidence, over his objection, regarding the victim's 14-year-old daughter. In this connection defendant argues, inter alia: We respectfully submit to this Court that the evidence regarding the Defendant finding [the daughter] in the bathroom of Ron Cichowski's apartment, the evidence of [R.L.] returning to Cichowski's apartment after putting [the daughter] to bed, and the evidence regarding [the daughter] being made a ward of the State and being placed in Richard Young Hospital and Boys Town, all entered over Defendant's objections on relevancy grounds, do not tend to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more *344 probable as is required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 1985). Thus, being not relevant it is "not admissible". Neb. Rev.Stat. § 27-402 (Reissue 1985). Brief for Appellant at 17. Initially, we note that defendant's characterization of the evidence is not accurate; nothing in the record before this court suggests that defendant found the victim's daughter in Cichowski's bathroom. Rather, the uncontroverted record is that the victim found both her very drunk daughter and defendant in Cichowski's bathroom. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 1985) defines "relevant evidence" as "evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Recently, in State v. Oliva, 228 Neb. 185, 422 N.W.2d 53 (1988), this court considered and rejected an argument virtually identical to the one now made by defendant, noting: Defendant next asserts that the victim's testimony was, in any event, unfairly prejudicial under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1985), and therefore should not have been admitted. The only discussion contained in defendant's brief concerning this second branch of his first assignment of error is the following conclusionary sentence: Brief for Appellant at 17. Defendant does not tell us how admission of evidence regarding the victim's daughter might have unfairly prejudiced his case, nor how it might have contributed to confusion of the issues; defendant's bald and conclusionary assertion does not rise to the level of "discussion" contemplated by the rule that this court will not consider assignments of error which are not discussed in the brief. State v. Bonczynski, 227 Neb. 203, 416 *345 N.W.2d 508 (1987). We nonetheless elect to consider the matter in the interest of completeness. Under § 27-403, relevant evidence is to be excluded if, among other things, there is a danger of unfair prejudice. State v. Nesbitt, 226 Neb. 32, 409 N.W.2d 314 (1987). In the context of § 27-403, "unfair prejudice" means a tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis. State v. Wilson, supra. While it is true that the circumstances of the discovery of defendant closeted in a bathroom with a drunk 14-year-old girl may raise inferential questions regarding impermissible issues, such as the defendant's character for sexual criminality or his motives in that particular situation, no attempt was made at trial to adduce evidence concerning any liberties the defendant may have taken then or at any other time with the young girl, nor with any person other than the victim. Upon review of the evidence adduced at trial, it is clear that the victim's daughter played only an extra's bit part in this unfortunate drama, mention of her largely being confined to the necessary explanation of the victim's first encounter with defendant. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that admitting the evidence was unfairly prejudicial such as to constitute an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Defendant's first assignment of error is therefore without merit. Defendant next claims as error the district court's receipt, over his objection, of evidence "regarding his pre-arrest silence." Once again, we must note that defendant's characterization of the evidence is not accurate; it is clear that his refusal to discuss R.L.'s rape with Hoch did not occur prior to an arrest but, rather, occurred when he was under arrest on outstanding traffic warrants. As this court recently noted in State v. Lofquest, 227 Neb. 567, 418 N.W.2d 595 (1988) (Lofquest II), prosecutory references to a defendant's silence, which possibly includes a period of time after the Miranda warnings were given, violate the principles of Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976), which holds that U.S. Const. amend. XIV prohibits prosecutors from using post-Miranda silence to impeach an exculpatory story told for the first time at trial. Furthermore, although, theoretically, violation of a defendant's Doyle rights at trial may be harmless error if the record demonstrates the absence of harm beyond a reasonable doubt, Lofquest II, supra, this court has also stated that violations of the principles of Doyle are rarely harmless error in cases where it becomes the word of a defendant against the word of a key prosecution witness, and the matter of the defendant's credibility is so significant that prosecutory error attacking that credibility cannot be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Lofquest II, supra. *346 (Citations omitted.) 227 Neb. at 571, 418 N.W.2d at 597-98. As this court observed in State v. Lofquest, 223 Neb. 87, 89, 388 N.W.2d 115, 117 (1986) (Lofquest I): (Emphasis in original.) The State argues that defendant's reference to his silence as "prearrest" in his brief is somehow conclusive of the issue. This cannot be, and is not, the case. Review of a criminal conviction in a jury trial is not de novo in this court, and this court is bound by the facts as found by the jury, based upon the evidence adduced at trial. As we have noted many times, it is not the province of this court to resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, determine the plausibility of explanations, or weigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. State v. Moreno, 228 Neb. 210, 422 N.W.2d 56 (1988); State v. Eichelberger, 227 Neb. 545, 418 N.W.2d 580 (1988). Furthermore, although it may be argued that the cases cited above are distinguishable in that defendant, when he declined to discuss R.L.'s rape with Hoch, was under arrest on outstanding traffic warrants rather than in connection with the crime which he declined to discuss, we find no authority, nor does the State direct us to any, which supports its implicit proposition that the State must observe constitutional provisions when questioning a suspect under arrest about the crime for which he has been arrested, but may disregard those same constitutional protections when putting to the suspect questions about other crimes. In fact, the U.S. Supreme Court has recently determined otherwise. Arizona v. Roberson, ___ U.S. ___, 108 S. Ct. 2093, 100 L. Ed. 2d 704 (1988), held that when a suspect is in custody for a crime in connection with which he has expressed a desire to remain silent, the police may not initiate interrogation concerning a different crime. In sum, a prosecutor may not refer to a criminal defendant's postarrest, post-Miranda silence. Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603, 102 S. Ct. 1309, 71 L. Ed. 2d 490 (1982); Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610, 96 S. Ct. 2240, 49 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1976). Moreover, any ambiguity regarding precisely when the defendant declined to talk to the police impermissibly taints evidence of the defendant's silence. Lofquest I; Lofquest II. As noted earlier, the admission or exclusion of evidence is a matter within the discretion of the trial court and one which will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. It is, however, an abuse of discretion to admit testimony regarding a criminal defendant's constitutionally protected silence when the record contains no evidence establishing that the silence did not occur following the giving of the Miranda warnings following an arrest, Lofquest II, error which we cannot say to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, particularly in view of the fact the pubic hair samples and serology tests do not distinguish between defendant and his brother, on whom suspicion originally focused. State v. Oliva, 228 Neb. 185, 422 N.W.2d 53 (1988). The record therefore sustains defendant's second assignment of error. Accordingly, we have no alternative but to reverse defendant's conviction and remand the cause for a new trial. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR A NEW TRIAL. BOSLAUGH, Justice, dissenting. In view of the scientific evidence concerning the defendant's blood type, I believe the error concerning testimony regarding the defendant's silence was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.