Opinion ID: 2093417
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Specific Findings: Trial Court's 404 Ruling

Text: Taking Dreimanis' first two assignments of error on further review together, Dreimanis asserts that the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the trial court was not required to make express findings in its ruling pursuant to rule 404 and in determining that the trial court's 404 ruling implicitly contained specific findings as to the purpose under rule 404 for which evidence regarding the prior conviction involving the victim C.G. was received. Dreimanis relies on State v. Osborn, 250 Neb. 57, 547 N.W.2d 139 (1996), as support for these two assignments of error. Because the rulings by the trial court and Court of Appeals antedate our decision in State v. Sanchez, supra , we reject these assignments of error as more fully explained below. In Osborn, we held that district courts shall articulate in writing or from the bench their general findings when denying or granting a motion to suppress. 250 Neb. at 67, 547 N.W.2d at 145. The Court of Appeals noted that our holding in Osborn expressly addressed rulings on motions to suppress and that, at the time of the trial court's ruling on the 404 hearing, no authority existed extending the Osborn requirement of specific findings regarding motions to suppress to rule 404 findings. On July 16, 1999, subsequent to both the trial court's and the Court of Appeals' decisions in the instant case, we issued our opinion in State v. Sanchez, supra . In Sanchez, we held that henceforth, the proponent of evidence offered pursuant to rule 404(2) shall, upon objection to its admissibility, be required to state on the record the specific purpose or purposes for which the evidence is being offered and that the trial court shall similarly state the purpose or purposes for which such evidence is received. (Emphasis supplied.) 257 Neb. at 308, 597 N.W.2d at 374. We further held that [a]ny limiting instruction given upon receipt of such evidence should likewise identify only those specific purposes for which the evidence was received. Id. In the present case, prior to trial, the trial court's ruling on the 404 hearing did not state the specific purpose or purposes for which evidence of Dreimanis' other bad acts would be received. At trial, when Dreimanis objected to the admission of such evidence on the basis of relevance and rule 404, his objections were overruled without a statement of the specific purpose or purposes for which the evidence was received. The trial court gave jury instruction No. 12 regarding evidence of Dreimanis' other acts as follows: You heard evidence that the defendant 1) sexually assaulted [C.G.], 2) sexually assaulted [E.W.'s brother], and 3) caused [E.W.] to rub his penis. Such evidence was not received to prove the character of the defendant in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. Such evidence was received only for the limited purpose of helping you to decide whether the defendant had the motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or accident to commit the first degree sexual assault of a child charged. You must consider the evidence for that limited purpose and for no other. The limiting instruction given to the jury recited the enumerated purposes for which evidence may be admitted under rule 404(2) but did not identify the specific purpose or purposes for which the evidence was received. In sum, the trial court's rulings admitting evidence of prior bad acts do not indicate the purpose for which they were admitted. The trial court's rulings do not comport with our opinion in State v. Sanchez, 257 Neb. 291, 597 N.W.2d 361 (1999). However, as noted, Dreimanis' trial took place in March 1998, prior to the issuance of our opinion in Sanchez. We stated in Sanchez that the requirements imposed on the trial courts to state the specific purposes for admission of evidence under rule 404(2) would apply henceforth, id at 308, 597 N.W.2d at 374, and therefore, we cannot find that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that, at the time of its ruling and that of the trial court, the trial court was under no obligation to make express findings in rulings pursuant to rule 404. See State v. Dreimanis, 8 Neb.App. 362, 370, 593 N.W.2d 750, 757 (1999). We reject Dreimanis' first assignment of error. With respect to the second assignment of error, namely, that the Court of Appeals erred in implicitly finding that the trial court made specific findings under rule 404, Dreimanis misreads the Court of Appeals' opinion. Contrary to Dreimanis' assertion, the Court of Appeals did not find that the trial court made specific findings, but, rather, concluded that specific findings under rule 404 were not required, and consequently, the absence of specific findings by the trial court was not error. Accordingly, we reject Dreimanis second assignment of error. At oral argument, Dreimanis' counsel argued that notwithstanding the language of the first and second assignments of error on further review, these assignments of error should be interpreted by this court as challenging the Court of Appeals' conclusion that evidence regarding the prior sexual assault of C.G. was admitted for a proper purpose under rule 404. We have reviewed the first and second assignments of error on further review and determine that the first and second assignments of error on further review simply do not pose the issue of the admissibility of the prior bad act under rule 404. A petition for further review and supporting memorandum brief must specifically set forth and discuss any error assigned to the Court of Appeals. State v. Woods, 255 Neb. 755, 587 N.W.2d 122 (1998). Absent plain error, our review on a petition for further review is restricted to matters assigned and argued in the briefs. State v. Al-Zubaidy, 257 Neb. 935, 602 N.W.2d 8 (1999). Because the issue of admissibility of evidence of prior bad acts regarding C.G. under rule 404 was not properly assigned in Dreimanis' petition for further review nor was it argued in the supporting brief, the issue is not properly before us on further review, and we render no opinion regarding the admissibility of such evidence under rule 404.