Opinion ID: 1281029
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: standard used by the court of appeals

Text: As stated above, the Court of Appeals applied the standard of review outlined in State v. Skalberg, 247 Neb. 150, 526 N.W.2d 67 (1995), quoting the following passages from that opinion: [T]he appellate court must first independently decide as a matter of law whether the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations and whether the inference of nonguilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of guilt. Regarding a question of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of that of the trial court in a judgment under review. (Emphasis omitted.) State v. Pierce, 3 Neb. App. at 447, 527 N.W.2d at 877. In Covarrubias, 244 Neb. at 374, 507 N.W.2d at 253, we explained our earlier holding in State v. LaFreniere, 240 Neb. 258, 481 N.W.2d 412 (1992): ` LaFreniere holds that in determining the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to support a conviction, any fact or circumstance reasonably susceptible of two interpretations must be resolved most favorably to the accused. LaFreniere requires a reasonable inference from circumstantial evidence to be taken most favorably to the accused when circumstantial evidence is the only basis upon which to support a conviction and the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of guilt and the other of nonguilt, and neither inference is stronger than the other. See, also, State v. Ruiz, 241 Neb. 693, 489 N.W.2d 865 (1992); State v. Dawson, 240 Neb. 89, 480 N.W.2d 700 (1992).' State v. Pierce, 3 Neb.App. at 447-48, 527 N.W.2d at 877. Skalberg also contains the following language pertinent to an appellate review: On appeal, the appellate court must first independently decide as a matter of law whether the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations and whether the inference of nonguilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of guilt. 247 Neb. at 156, 526 N.W.2d at 71. In interpreting Skalberg, the Court of Appeals stated the following: We read Skalberg as saying that the appellate courts are to weigh the inferences and judge their relative strength in order to reach an independent conclusion, as a matter of law, as to where the case falls among the three possibilities [ (1) inference of guilt outweighs inference of nonguilt, (2) inference of nonguilt outweighs inference of guilt, and (3) inferences weigh the same] outlined herein. (Emphasis supplied.) State v. Pierce, 3 Neb. App. at 448, 527 N.W.2d at 877.