Opinion ID: 1592156
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: introduction of evidence of prior misconduct

Text: During cross-examination of one of the witnesses during the State's case in chief, and during his own case in chief, Green elicited testimony regarding a number of his prior arrests and contacts with Columbus police officers. Green contends that the trial court committed reversible error by not immediately conducting a hearing outside the presence of the jury pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-104(3) (Reissue 1989) to determine the admissibility of the evidence. Section 27-104(3) provides in relevant part, Hearings on ... preliminary matters shall be so conducted when the interests of justice require, or when an accused is a witness, if he so requests. In this case, Green maintains that the interests of justice required the hearing. The record is devoid of any request by Green for such a hearing. Green claims in effect that the trial court had an obligation to save him from himself. In this regard, the U.S. Supreme Court has declared: A defendant does not have a constitutional right to receive personal instruction from the trial judge on courtroom procedure. Nor does the Constitution require judges to take over chores for a pro se defendant that would normally be attended to by trained counsel as a matter of course. McKaskle v. Wiggins, supra at 465 U.S. at 183-84, 104 S.Ct. at 953-54. This court has held that a criminal defendant who proceeds pro se is held to the same trial standard as if he or she were represented by counsel. State v. Spotted Elk, 227 Neb. 869, 420 N.W.2d 707 (1988). We have further declared that a defendant may insist on representing himself or herself no matter how foolhardy that decision is, if made knowingly and intelligently, and once that decision is made, the defendant making that choice must accept the consequences of his or her election. State v. Rogers, 208 Neb. 464, 303 N.W.2d 788 (1981). Green must accept the consequences of his election to proceed pro se. It is not up to the trial court to conduct the defense of a pro se defendant. A defendant's rights guaranteed under Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 95 S.Ct. 2525, 45 L.Ed.2d 562 (1975), must be honored, even if in doing so, a court allows a defendant to do harm to himself or herself. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing sua sponte to hold a hearing pursuant to § 27-104(3). See United States v. Odom, 736 F.2d 104 (4th Cir.1984) (trial court's action under federal counterpart reviewed for abuse of discretion). This assignment of error is without merit.