Opinion ID: 1679195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: direct testimony of lack of intent

Text: First, Fahlk objects to the trial court's rulings with regard to his direct testimony. Fahlk sought to testify as follows: [Fahlk's counsel:] Mr. Fahlk, when you took the school district's Image Writer II printer to Lincoln and brought your own Image Writer back here, was it your intention to keep the school district's property? [Fahlk:] No. [Prosecutor:] Objected to as invading the province of the Jury, and move to strike. THE COURT: Sustained. [Shortly thereafter, this exchange took place:] [Fahlk's counsel:] Did you steal anything from the Nebraska City School District? [Fahlk:] No. [Prosecutor:] Objected to as invading the province of the Jury, and move to strike. [THE COURT:] Sustained. Fahlk sought to testify regarding the ultimate issue in this case: his guilt or innocence. Such testimony, if believed, is clearly material to [the defendant's] defense, for it goes to the heart of the offensewhether [the defendant] intentionally violated the relevant statutes. State v. Stott, 243 Neb. 967, 978, 503 N.W.2d 822, 831 (1993). Defendants may testify regarding their intent, or lack of intent, to commit the offenses with which they have been charged. See State v. Nielsen, 243 Neb. 202, 498 N.W.2d 527 (1993). Although the trial court erred in refusing to allow Fahlk to testify regarding his lack of intent, error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of a party is affected. Neb.Evid.R. 103, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-103 (Reissue 1989); State v. Messersmith, 238 Neb. 924, 473 N.W.2d 83 (1991). No substantial right of Fahlk's was affected by the trial court's refusal to admit Fahlk's opinions regarding his own guilt or innocence, because, as the Court of Appeals correctly noted, the substance of Fahlk's disputed testimony was placed before the jury. The trial court allowed Fahlk to testify that it was my intention that after negotiations for the 91-92 contract were completed, to take them [the printers] back, to reexchange them. Further, Fahlk was able to put his letter to the board of education into evidence. This letter explained Fahlk's reasons for the exchange and stated that the exchange was not intended to be permanent. Therefore, Fahlk was able to put evidence before the jury regarding his lack of intent. No substantial right of Fahlk was affected by the trial court's refusal to admit Fahlk's opinions regarding his own guilt or innocence; thus, no error may be predicated on the trial court's ruling that Fahlk was not entitled to testify about his state of mind during the alleged theft.