Opinion ID: 4549021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: Because the district court did not err in receiving exhibit 7 and because there was sufficient evidence to support the challenged conviction under § 28-1206, we affirm. Affirmed. Heavican, C.J., not participating. Miller-Lerman, J., concurring. Regrettably, today the majority announces a wholly unforced new chapter in Nebraska appellate jurisprudence. The majority opinion establishes the following precedents: • The Nebraska Supreme Court will consider new arguments made by any party for the first time at oral argument before the Nebraska Supreme Court (i.e., parties are no longer required to present or preserve a controlling issue earlier in the appellate process or in the lower courts); and • “Plain error review” is now a vehicle for the Nebraska Supreme Court for overruling precedent (i.e., the Nebraska Supreme Court’s plain error review doctrine is no longer limited to correcting errors committed by the trial court under existing law plainly evident from the record). - 107 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. VANN Cite as 306 Neb. 91 In my view, adoption of these new principles of appellate law injects instability and diminishes confidence in Nebraska’s appellate process. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I agree that the Smith line of precedents has become at odds with the progeny of Parke. So applying the new substantive law announced today, I concur.