Opinion ID: 2209739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 23

Heading: Harrold's Testimony

Text: At trial, defense counsel also made an offer of proof relating to Harrold's testimony. Specifically, the defense wanted to ask Harrold questions regarding his knowledge of the CableVision rules and ask Harrold about his knowledge of the sexually explicit material available in the community. We have previously addressed the relevance of the CableVision rules themselves and Grooman's testimony regarding those rules. For the same reasons, we determine that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Harrold's testimony on the same issue. We then turn to Harrold's testimony relating to community standards. In this regard, we must consider the testimony contained in Harrold's offer of proof: Q. Okay. Are you familiar with what type of material is available in the community? A. (There was no audible response.) Q. As far as sexually explicit material. [Harrold]. To a degree. Q. Okay. And how do you come by your knowledge of what is available? [Harrold]. Just from living in Lincoln, you know. I do it in my life. Q. Okay. You testified earlier that you had viewed rentals that were available in the market, is that correct? [Harrold]. Yes. Q. And did you view materials which you believed to be obscene under the current community standards? [Harrold]. I came across `em, you know, II rented some videos where I got into `em and I considered `em to be obscene then I'd, you know, I kinda lost interest in watchin' it. Q. Okay. That would conclude my offer of proof, Your Honor. We find that the foregoing offer of proof lacks the foundational requirements necessary to make the evidence admissible under Nebraska law. Harrold's proffered testimony, even interpreted liberally, is nothing more than one individual's sense of whether certain unidentified videos, that have not been introduced into evidence, may be obscene under current community standards. See Main Street Movies v. Wellman, 251 Neb. 367, 557 N.W.2d 641 (1997). If interpreted literally, Harrold said nothing more than that he had rented movies which he believed to be obscene under contemporary community standards, and this testimony says nothing about the content of work that Harrold believes to violate contemporary community standards or what those standards might be. Consequently, nothing in Harrold's offer of proof would be helpful to the jury in evaluating community standards. Harrold's opinion lacked foundation and relevance, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.