Opinion ID: 3152660
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: Hearsay Poe argues that the court erred by excluding the second paragraph of Velma’s affidavit on hearsay grounds. He contends that he did not offer it for the truth of the matter asserted. Instead, he states that he offered it to show that Riley knew Harper had made a statement to the effect that Poe was innocent. [4,5] Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted.7 Hearsay is not admissible unless otherwise provided for in the Nebraska Evidence Rules or elsewhere.8 [6] Of course, an out-of-court statement is not hearsay if the proponent offers it for a purpose other than proving the truth of the matter asserted.9 For example, a statement is not hearsay if the proponent offers it to show its impact on the listener and the listener’s knowledge, belief, response, or state 4 Id. 5 Id. 6 See Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2015). 7 State v. Hale, 290 Neb. 70, 858 N.W.2d 543 (2015). 8 Id. 9 State v. Parker, 276 Neb. 661, 757 N.W.2d 7 (2008). - 66 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. POE Cite as 292 Neb. 60 of mind after hearing the statement is relevant to an issue in the case.10 [7,8] But we need not decide if the second paragraph of Velma’s affidavit is admissible as evidence of Riley’s knowledge, because its exclusion did not prejudice Poe. Error that does not prejudice the appellant is not a ground for relief on appeal.11 The exclusion of evidence is ordinarily not prejudicial if the court admits substantially similar evidence without objection.12 Hayes repeatedly testified that she told Riley that Harper said that he was lying and that Poe was innocent. Poe himself stated in his affidavit that he told Riley that he had “reason to believe . . . Harper had recently admitted lying to detectives about my involvement.” The second paragraph of Velma’s affidavit was substantially similar to other evidence that the court received. Its exclusion therefore did not prejudice a substantial right of Poe. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Poe argues that the court was clearly wrong in finding that Hayes did not tell Riley about Harper’s inconsistent statement. Poe contends that Riley did not testify “on personal knowledge.”13 Instead, Riley’s “basis for his conclusion that Hayes did not tell him is his belief that he would have asked more follow-up questions,” which Poe believes is “an untenable basis for the district court’s finding.”14 Because of its 10 State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (2011). See, State v. Henderson, 289 Neb. 271, 854 N.W.2d 616 (2014); State v. Reinhart, 283 Neb. 710, 811 N.W.2d 258 (2012); State v. Hansen, 252 Neb. 489, 562 N.W.2d 840 (1997); State v. Bear Runner, 198 Neb. 368, 252 N.W.2d 638 (1977); 2 McCormick on Evidence § 249 (Kenneth S. Broun et al. eds., 7th ed. 2013). 11 See Huber v. Rohrig, 280 Neb. 868, 791 N.W.2d 590 (2010). 12 Steinhausen v. HomeServices of Neb., 289 Neb. 927, 857 N.W.2d 816 (2015). 13 Brief for appellant at 15. 14 Id. - 67 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 292 Nebraska R eports STATE v. POE Cite as 292 Neb. 60 mistaken factual finding, Poe argues that the court’s legal conclusion was also faulty. [9] To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington,15 the defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient performance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense.16 A court may address the two prongs of this test, deficient performance and prejudice, in either order.17 We conclude that the court’s finding that Hayes never told Riley about Harper’s inconsistent statement is not clearly wrong. Riley testified that he did not believe Hayes told him about the statement, because he could not remember Hayes telling him about the statement. Whether a person can have any other type of “personal knowledge” of an event that did not occur is a question for a metaphysician, not a court. Poe argues that Riley testified in “less specific terms” than Hayes,18 but it is not our role to reweigh the credibility of witnesses or resolve conflicts in the evidence.19