Opinion ID: 1711914
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Lee Warren

Text: Warren testified that when police spoke to Warren, Warren gave them more information than just the incident with Anthony Jones. The record does not indicate what that other information was, or whether it even related to Harris. Harris objected based on the previous motion in limine and the order of the Court. The objection was overruled. Based upon the reasoning set forth above, we similarly conclude that Harris has waived any claim of error pursuant to § 27-404(2) with respect to this testimony, and even if properly made and preserved, such claim of error would be without merit. Warren later testified that pursuant to an agreement with the State, Warren's parole would be transferred to a different state for purposes of safety. Harris objected that the State's question was leading and suggestive, and the objection was sustained. Harris made no motion to strike Warren's testimony. Later, Warren testified that the State had agreed [t]o transfer me to protect myself so I wouldn't end up dead, you know, deceased. No objection was made to this testimony. Again, Harris waived any claim pursuant to § 27-404(2) by failing to object on that basis. Furthermore, Harris made no motion to strike the offending testimony after his objection to that testimony was sustained, and thus, he has no basis for complaining about the testimony on appeal. See State v. Neujahr, 248 Neb. 965, 540 N.W.2d 566 (1995). With respect to the second statement made by Warren, Harris waived any claim of error by failing to object at all. In so doing, Harris also rendered harmless any error with respect to Warren's first statement, as it was rendered cumulative by the admission without objection of Warren's second statement to the same effect. See State v. Kinser, 259 Neb. 251, 609 N.W.2d 322 (2000). During closing arguments, the State remarked that Warren was to be transferred to another state so he doesn't end up dead. Harris objected that that's improper, the objection was sustained, and the remark was stricken. As nothing in the record suggests that the striking of the State's remarks was insufficient to dispel any prejudice, we conclude that the remarks present no basis for reversal. See McLemore, supra . We conclude that Harris has failed to preserve any objections pursuant to § 27-404(2), but even if preserved, those objections would present no basis for reversal. Having so concluded, we likewise conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Harris' motion for mistrial based on the effect of the statements described above. Harris' third and fourth assignments of error are without merit.