Opinion ID: 1807431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: Ruling on Motions

Text: Boppre contends that the district court's failure to rule on four motions he made during trial, namely, a motion for individual questioning of jurors, a motion to prevent unlawful use of peremptory challenges, a motion to submit NJI 14.80 prior to death-qualifying the venire, and a motion to preclude death-qualifying the venire, was a blatant irregularity in the proceedings of the Court and prohibited [Boppre's] ability to receive a fair trial herein. Brief for appellant at 36. It is impossible to understand Boppre's complaint in regard to the district court's alleged failure to rule on his motion for individual questioning of jurors in light of the fact that Boppre was permitted to and did ask questions of whichever individual venirepersons he chose. Also impossible to understand is Boppre's complaint that the district court failed to rule on his motion to prevent the State from using its peremptory challenges for the unlawful purpose of excluding from the jury persons who may entertain scruples against the death penalty.... To the extent the complaint relates to death-qualifying the jury, the matter is resolved by the analysis which relates to his next complaint. If the claim is that the State made other unlawful uses of its peremptory challenges, there simply is no showing that such in fact occurred. This brings us to Boppre's next complaint, which claims that the district court failed to rule on his motion to preclude death qualification of the venire. Yet, according to one of the district court's journal entries, the district court overruled this motion and, as is evident from the record, proceeded to question the venire as to whether any person's views on capital punishment were such as to prevent or substantially impair his or her ability to impartially apply the law to the evidence. Moreover, we have repeatedly rejected the argument that such questioning produces a more conviction-prone jury than would otherwise be the case. State v. Hankins, 232 Neb. 608, 441 N.W.2d 854 (1989); State v. Bird Head, 225 Neb. 822, 408 N.W.2d 309 (1987); State v. Burchett, 224 Neb. 444, 399 N.W.2d 258 (1986). Boppre's last complaint in this regard is as devoid of merit as the foregoing three. It claims that the district court failed to rule on his motion to submit NJI 14.80 prior to allowing death qualification. However, the record shows that twice prior to questioning each group of venirepersons as to whether any persons had scruples against the death penalty, the district court instructed them in accordance with NJI 14.80, which provides: You have nothing whatever to do with the punishment of the defendant in the event of his conviction. Therefore, in determining his guilt or innocence, you have no right to take into consideration what punishment he may or may not receive in the event of his conviction.