Opinion ID: 3211934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: all but one of oldson’s journal

Text: EXCERPTS WERE INADMISSIBLE TO SHOW HIS GUILT OF BEARD’S MURDER 1. General Background Evidence Beard disappeared from Ord, Nebraska, on May 31, 1989. In June, local and state law enforcement investigators 45 Id. at 581-82, 799 N.W.2d at 282-83. - 823 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 interviewed Oldson at least three times about his interactions with Beard on the night she disappeared. Evidence not presented to the jury showed that in July, officers arrested Oldson for assaulting a woman in Burwell, Nebraska. While he was serving the sentence for this assault in the county jail, he kept a journal. From December 1989 to September 1990, when Oldson was not in his cell, county jail officers copied the pages of Oldson’s journal every other week during searches of his cell. Almost 2 years later, in April 1992, investigators found Beard’s remains in a pasture outside of Ord. In January 2012, 23 years after Beard’s disappearance, a sheriff’s officer in Missouri, where Oldson was then living, arrested him for Beard’s murder. 2. Trial Proceedings On the sixth day of Oldson’s trial, the court conducted an in camera hearing on the admissibility of evidence. The State sought to submit nine redacted pages from Oldson’s journal while he was in jail for committing the assault in Burwell. It argued that a rule 404(3) hearing was unnecessary. The prosecutor stated that “every single admission or inculpatory statement that’s made in that diary specifically addresses what took place and the facts and circumstances between Mr. Oldson and Cathy Beard on May 31st, 1989, nothing else.” In response to Oldson’s objections to this argument, the court went through the redacted pages individually. Oldson’s attorney explained that in a proceeding to obtain a search warrant, an officer stated that county jail officers had found Oldson’s journal in the trash. But when the court later asked the prosecutor what the State’s foundation would be for one of these pages, the prosecutor gave a different account. He said that while Oldson was in jail, county jail officers performed cell checks every other week. At these times, the officers would remove Oldson from his cell, take him to the library, and then copy his journal. The prosecutor said that this went on from December 1989 to September 1990, when the State released Oldson. - 824 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 The court admitted Oldson’s entire 230-page journal to rule on the admissibility of the redacted pages. The next day, the court issued a written order admitting all nine pages of Oldson’s journal. The court admitted exhibits 263 through 271 during the testimony of Gerald Woodgate, who said only that he was the sheriff of Valley County, Nebraska, in 1989 when Beard disappeared. But the evidence and parties’ statements at the pretrial hearings to exclude the evidence showed that Oldson was in the Valley County jail for an unrelated assault when he wrote these journal entries. The State asked Woodgate only if he had come into contact with any of Oldson’s writings between December 1989 and September 1990. The State provided no explanation for when Oldson would have written this journal or how the State came to possess it. In a sidebar discussion, Oldson repeated his pretrial objections, which the court overruled. After the court instructed the jury not to speculate about the text that had been redacted, the State published these excerpts to the jury. Except for exhibits 266 and 270, the court provided no explanation to the jury for why these exhibits were relevant to prove a fact of consequence in the prosecution. Out of the jury’s presence, the court overruled Oldson’s motion for a mistrial. Later, the court submitted exhibits 263 through 271 to the jury for review during its deliberations. 3. Evidence Fails to Show That Oldson Used a Pattern of Concealment or Encryption to R efer to Beard (a) Exhibit 263 Did Not Show Consciousness of Guilt (i) Trial Court’s Ruling In exhibit 263, Oldson wrote the following entry: “I guess the whole import of this thing with the ‘missing one’ has not hit home, yet. But it should, as they are now looking for charges. If they do prefer charges, well - ? I don’t see how they can hang me for anything.” - 825 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 The court ruled that exhibit 263 was admissible to show that Oldson knew he was a suspect: “Further, the content directly relates to this charge. This is not character evidence and is not unfairly prejudicial.” (ii) Trial Court Erred in Admitting Exhibit 263 I assume that in exhibit 263, Oldson’s reference to the “‘missing one’” was a reference to Beard. But I believe the court erred in admitting this evidence to show that Oldson knew he was a suspect in Beard’s disappearance. It is true that Oldson’s statement that he doubted investigators could “hang [him] for anything” could be reasonably interpreted to mean he knew he was a suspect. But that evidence was unnecessary. Oldson knew that he was a suspect because investigators had questioned him at least three times in June 1989. And standing alone, his knowledge that he was a suspect was not probative of any fact of consequence. So the court’s implicit agreement with the State that exhibit 263 showed Oldson’s consciousness of guilt was speculative. I agree that Oldson’s statement could reasonably support an inference that he doubted the State would charge him with a crime. But apart from speculation, that inference could not support the further inferences of Oldson’s guilty knowledge about the crime or his guilt of murder. And it could equally support an inference that he was innocent of Beard’s murder but concerned that investigators would suspect him of being involved in her disappearance because he was allegedly the last man to have been seen with her. Another reasonable inference could be that Oldson was expressing a doubt that investigators would manufacture evidence against him. He explicitly questioned whether investigators might try to manufacture evidence against him in exhibit 268. And the majority concedes that Oldson’s statement in exhibit 268 was largely exculpatory. So if Oldson was expressing the same sentiment in exhibit 263— i.e., doubting that investigators would try to frame him—his - 826 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 statement did not reasonably support an inference that he had guilty knowledge of Beard’s murder. It is true that Oldson’s statement could have also been interpreted to mean that he doubted investigators would find evidence that he murdered Beard. That interpretation would have supported the State’s argument that Oldson’s statement was relevant to show his consciousness of guilt. But the actual meaning of his statement in exhibit 263 requires guesswork. To interpret his statement to mean that he doubted investigators would find evidence that he murdered Beard required a fact finder to engage in complete speculation about Oldson’s meaning. As stated, courts generally exclude speculative evidence as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial under rule 403. It encourages jurors to determine an issue by drawing an unreasonable inference.46 And evidence of a defendant’s conduct or statement does not justify an inference of his or her consciousness of guilt under rule 404 if it requires a fact finder to make speculative connections. Here, the evidence supports three equally speculative interpretations: one inculpatory and two innocent. So the court erred in failing to recognize that admitting exhibit 263 would allow the jurors to speculate that it was relevant to show his consciousness of guilt. Its potential for unfair prejudice outweighed its weak and possibly nonexistent probative value. (iii) The Majority’s Alternative Reasoning Is Incorrect The majority ignores the court’s error under rule 403 in admitting exhibit 263 to show (1) Oldson’s knowledge that he was a suspect and (2) implicitly, his consciousness of guilt. Instead, it zeros in on the State’s alternative argument at trial. In a single paragraph, the majority summarily opines that the “oblique nature of Oldson’s references to Beard . . . or 46 See cases cited supra notes 35 and 37 through 39. - 827 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 evidence relating to her disappearance” in exhibit 263, 264, 265, and 267 support an inference of Oldson’s consciousness of guilt. It incorrectly reasons that his consciousness of guilt can be “inferred from the secretive way in which Oldson referred to Beard throughout his writings.” If this analysis of “secretive” references seems weak, it is because the majority necessarily avoids scrutinizing the State’s reasoning. The majority states that evidence showing a defendant’s consciousness of guilt is strong evidence of guilt because nothing else will explain the evidence. Yet, the majority concludes that the court did not abuse its discretion under 403 in admitting these “oblique” references to Beard or the facts of her disappearance. There are two problems with this reasoning. First, the trial court gave the jurors no instructions on how they were to consider exhibit 263. Oldson would not have requested a limiting instruction because he argued that the evidence was inadmissible for any purpose. So even if the majority’s alternative reasoning were correct, the court’s failure to limit the jury to considering exhibit 263 for a proper purpose would have only compounded its error in admitting it for a speculative purpose. Because the jurors would have assumed that the evidence was relevant for proving Oldson’s guilt, the danger was high they would have speculated about the meaning of his statement. Equally important, the majority’s alternative theory of relevance—to show Oldson’s consciousness of guilt under rule 404(2)—also invites speculation about the meaning of Oldson’s statements. The majority points to no other excerpts from his journal that show the “‘missing one’” was Oldson’s secret code for Beard. Nor does the majority show that he used any pattern of encryption to conceal his statements about Beard. And the evidence does not support that conclusion. First, a review of Oldson’s entire journal, which the court received for ruling on these excerpts, shows that there is no other reference to the “‘missing one.’” Second, the majority - 828 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 acknowledges that Oldson directly referred to Beard by her last name when he wrote that the Valley County Attorney was ‘“so obsessed with Beard.’” Oldson also mused about “Cathie” in at least three journal entries, which writings may have also been references to Beard. At least, the record does not show they are not. So Oldson’s journal, viewed as a whole, suggests with an equal degree of confidence that he was not attempting to conceal his writings about Beard. Third, Oldson referred to other people by derogatory labels throughout his journal. So his mere use of a label in exhibit 263 is insufficient to show that he deliberately concealed references to Beard. In sum, his references to Beard as the “‘missing one’” in exhibit 263 did not reasonably support an inference that he was deliberately concealing his references to Beard. That interpretation is speculative. More important, even accepting the majority’s premise that Oldson was attempting to conceal his references to Beard, exhibit 263 did not show his consciousness of guilt. Even a hundred “oblique” references to Beard could not do that unless the statements themselves were sufficient to support a reasonable inference that he had guilty knowledge of the charged crime. The majority fails to set out the chain of necessary inferences to conclude that Oldson had guilty knowledge of Beard’s murder from his statement in exhibit 263. The reason for its omission is clear. As explained above, exhibit 263 could not support that inference apart from speculation. And even if the trial court considered exhibit 263 with exhibits 264, 265, and 267, they do not reasonably support that inference. (b) Exhibit 264 Did Not Show Consciousness of Guilt (i) Trial Court’s Ruling The State redacted all but one sentence of exhibit 264: “Well, one doesn’t write certain things in his journal, does he?” The court concluded that this page was admissible because it - 829 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 “contains an inference that [Oldson] is hiding something and is inculpatory. It is not character evidence.” (ii) Trial Court Erred in Admitting Exhibit 264 and the Majority’s Alternative Reasoning Is Incorrect The court’s admission of exhibit 264 to show that Oldson was hiding something was even more improper under rule 403 than its admission of exhibit 263—because inferring Oldson’s meaning in exhibit 264 was even more speculative. This statement could only be probative of a fact of consequence if it showed that Oldson was hiding his guilty knowledge about murdering Beard. But it was equally plausible that Oldson was musing about a fantasy that he did not want to reveal. Or that he was musing about his desire to kill a cellmate, his regret of a previous bad act, or the facts of murdering Beard. But short of using a Ouija board, no fact finder could divine what Oldson was writing about. The majority’s conclusion that exhibit 264 was admissible to show Oldson’s consciousness of guilt through his cryptic references to Beard is similarly wrong. Under its reasoning— regardless of content—Oldson’s obvious references to Beard, and his silence, show a pattern of trying to conceal his guilty knowledge. This is circular reasoning. The majority finds a reference to Beard in exhibit 264 only by proceeding from an assumption that a pattern of concealment exists. But the absence of actual evidence showing a pattern can never lead to a reliable conclusion that he was attempting to conceal his statements. I conclude that exhibit 264 fails to show a pattern of oblique references or encryption. And it does not support an inference of guilty knowledge. (c) Exhibit 265 Did Not Show Consciousness of Guilt (i) Trial Court’s Ruling In exhibit 265, the court admitted the following redacted statement: “Well, it looks as if this foolishness about the - 830 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 missing doo-doo has reached a point where the end is in sight. That’s good. I like it - perhaps now I can ease my mind.” In its order, the court stated, “This is not character evidence. These are statements made by [Oldson] that are directly related to this charge. The jury is allowed to make whatever inferences they choose about this statement.” (ii) Trial Court Erred in Admitting Exhibit 265 and the Majority’sAlternative Reasoning Is Incorrect The trial court incorrectly reasoned that exhibit 265 was admissible because Oldson’s statement directly related to the charged crime. I assume that the reference to the “missing doodoo” was another reference to Beard. As stated, however, other evidence established that Oldson knew he was a suspect. So it was not incriminating for Oldson to express relief that the investigation was almost over. An innocent person could have expressed that sentiment, and Oldson’s characterization of the investigation as “foolishness” strengthens an innocent interpretation of the statement. But that interpretation was irrelevant to a fact of consequence. The trial court may have alternatively reasoned that Oldson’s statement was directly related to the charged crime by interpreting it to mean that he was relieved to be getting away with murdering Beard. But again, Oldson’s actual meaning required guesswork. The exculpatory and inculpatory interpretations of his statement are both speculative. And because a fact finder could only find that the evidence was relevant to a fact of consequence through speculation, the court’s admission of exhibit 265 for any purpose at all virtually ensured that the jurors would speculate about Oldson’s meaning. So under rule 403, the court erred in allowing the jurors to speculate that Oldson had guilty knowledge of Beard’s murder. Furthermore, the alternative reasoning in the majority opinion does not cure the problem under rule 404(2). As a reminder, the majority concludes that exhibit 265 was also admissible to - 831 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 show Oldson’s consciousness of guilt through his cryptic references to Beard or evidence related to her disappearance. But Oldson’s reference to Beard here as the “‘missing doo-doo’” fails to show that this was a term he used to conceal his writings about Beard. Knowing that he was a suspect in Beard’s disappearance, this label was no more secretive than his reference to the “‘missing one’” in exhibit 263. Additionally, he specifically referred to other people in his journal as “doo-doos.” And he used worse derogatory labels for others throughout his journal. So in context, his use of labels illustrates only his insensitivity to others, not an encryption. Finally, as noted, Oldson directly referred to “Beard” and mused about an unidentified “Cathie” in other entries. So when his journal is viewed as a whole, this entry also fails to show that he was trying to conceal or use encryption for his references to Beard. And because the meaning of Oldson’s statement requires guesswork to conclude that it shows his consciousness of guilt about Beard’s murder, it obviously did not provide a sufficient factual foundation to reasonably support that inference. (d) Exhibit 267 Did Not Show That Oldson Secretively Referred to Beard in Other Exhibits As I explain later, I agree that exhibit 267 was probative of Oldson’s consciousness of guilt for Beard’s murder. In that exhibit, Oldson stated that his first priority upon his release was to get rid of something that linked him to an unnamed person or thing. But that single statement cannot show a pattern that proves Oldson was secretly writing about Beard in other excerpts to conceal his guilty knowledge of the crime. It is the content of exhibit 267 that evidences Oldson’s consciousness of guilt, not proof of a pattern that shows he used secret references for Beard. Even if the court considered exhibit 267 with the other exhibits offered to show Oldson’s attempt to conceal his references to Beard, it failed to show a pattern. There is no nonspeculative pattern in these exhibits. So the - 832 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 majority incorrectly fails to consider each excerpt separately to determine whether it was properly admitted to show Oldson’s consciousness of guilt. 4. Trial Court Erred in A dmitting Exhibit 266 (a) Parties’ Arguments and Trial Court’s Ruling The journal entry that the court admitted as exhibit 266 originally read as follows: I have determined that I am not going to be physically bullied by anyone, any longer. . . . I have acquired a great deal of confidence. I can see it in the people around me that they respect that confidence. This is good. I can now be what I want to be with no fear of any man. Of course, emotional fear of women may still be there - I don’t know. I haven[’]t had any interaction w/girls lately - obviously. Of course, I see little reason to fear any longer. I know pain, I know loss, I know hardship - nothing that can happen can be as bad as what I have already been “stricked” (or stricken) with. Besides, as much as I like being with girls, and as much as I want a relationship, I would think that it’s in my best interest to plunge right in with no fear. Show off my best side, etc. Maybe the problem has been my making girls too high a priority - and having real problems with accepting rejection. Which may be how all this got started. “Get it any way you can” (?) Doesn’t sound like a good attitude. It got me in trouble. The State redacted all but the last three sentences of this entry “[j]ust to be as cautious as possible.” So exhibit 266, as presented to the jury, provided the following: “Maybe the problem has been my making girls too high a priority - and having real problems with accepting rejection. Which may be how all this got started. ‘Get it any way you can’ (?) Doesn’t sound like a good attitude. It got me in trouble.” - 833 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 The State argued that exhibit 266 was admissible to show Oldson’s state of mind when he interacted with Beard outside the bar on May 31, 1989, because he was writing about that specific event. It additionally argued that exhibit 266 was relevant to show Oldson’s motive for the charged crime: his refusal to accept rejection. Oldson’s attorney argued that exhibit 266 was too speculative to show that he was writing about Beard. She reminded the court that Oldson wrote that this “may be how all this got started” when he was in custody for an “incident involving a woman, involving rejection at Burwell.” The court had previously received evidence showing that in July 1989, officers arrested Oldson for an assault against a woman in Burwell. The assault involved his forcibly touching her stomach and then fleeing. But at trial, the court did not seem to know what the Burwell incident referred to. So Oldson’s attorney briefly explained that the State had convicted Oldson of an assault there. She argued that his journal entry was likely about the unrelated assault because it was similar to “the sexual proclivities that are described in the diary” and the woman had resisted in some manner. The court admitted Oldson’s statements that he had problems accepting rejection and that his “‘[g]et it any way you can’” attitude had got him into trouble to show his motive and consciousness of guilt for Beard’s murder: This is not evidence of a prior act under 27-404(2). The State is not offering this to prove [Oldson] has a character trait (problem with accepting rejection) that causes him or has caused him to murder other women. The evidence does not indicate or imply that [Oldson] kills women who reject him. This is proper to offer as evidence of motive and consciousness of guilt as to this charge. Further, this is relevant to statements [Oldson] made to others that Cathy Beard rejected him. Despite this ruling, just before the State published exhibit 266 to the jury, the trial court changed course. It instructed the - 834 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 jurors that exhibit 266 was being admitted “to help you decide motive . . . . You must consider this evidence only for this limited purpose.” So the court admitted exhibit 266 to show only motive, not consciousness of guilt. (b) The Majority’s Reasoning The majority agrees that exhibit 266 was logically relevant to show Oldson’s reason for killing Beard. But to reach that conclusion, it first reasons that the evidence shows Oldson’s consciousness of guilt. It states that the court “[i]n essence . . . found that the jury could reasonably infer from exhibit 266 that Oldson was acknowledging he had gotten himself into ‘trouble’ because he attempted to ‘[g]et it any way you can’ when Beard rejected him on the night of her disappearance.” Citing Huddleston v. United States,47 the majority concludes that court’s only duty in its gatekeeping role was limited to determining whether the jury could reasonably find by a preponderance of the evidence the conditioning fact necessary to make exhibit 266 relevant: i.e., that Oldson was writing about getting himself in trouble with Beard on the night she disappeared because he attempted to “‘[g]et it any way you can’” and Beard rejected him. The majority concludes that the court was required to consider other evidence, “especially the other journal excerpts.” It concludes that the jury could reasonably draw the inference that Oldson was writing about Beard because his other journal entries independently supported an inference that he referred to Beard in a purposefully vague way. It finds nothing in Oldson’s journal excerpts to undermine this conclusion. So it concludes that the “jury could reasonably infer from exhibit 266 that Oldson was reflecting upon the fact that he had killed Beard because she rejected him.” On appeal, Oldson argues that the court should have excluded exhibit 266 because he could not rebut the motive 47 Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681, 108 S. Ct. 1496, 99 L. Ed. 2d 771 (1988). - 835 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 inference without opening the door to extrinsic evidence that he was in custody for an unrelated assault. Although Oldson ties his argument to rule 403 in his brief,48 the majority mischaracterizes it. It treats the argument as a rule 404 issue and concludes that presenting the extrinsic evidence on crossexamination would have been free of propensity reasoning. The majority opinion cites cases in which a court upheld the admission of flight or escape evidence to show a defendant’s consciousness of guilt even though the defendant was sought or being held for more than one crime. From this, it concludes that Oldson’s tough choice whether to present evidence that would damn him in the jury’s eyes was not a reason to exclude the evidence. Finally, the majority concludes that exhibit 266 did not pre­ sent a rule 403 problem. It implicitly reasons that the exhibit did not create a propensity inference because Oldson was writing about killing Beard. But it alternatively reasons that because there is no character trait involved in having a problem with rejection, he could not have been prejudiced by improper propensity reasoning. As the final nail in the coffin, the majority states that only rarely, and only under “‘extraordinarily compelling circumstances,’” will this court reverse a trial court’s rule 403 determination. To summarize, the majority’s confusing analysis concludes that when read in context with his other cryptic statements, Oldson’s statement in exhibit 266 was direct evidence of his motive: He was explaining why he killed Beard. Because he was writing about Beard’s murder, it was not evidence of his character. Through this reasoning, it dodges Oldson’s argument that exhibit 266 was character evidence. Worse yet, the majority concludes that because exhibit 266 showed that Oldson’s motive for killing Beard was rejection, exhibit 266 was properly admitted under rule 404 even if it was character evidence. It reasons that the court’s admission of Oldson’s statement 48 See brief for appellant at 62-65. - 836 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 is not nearly as bad as statements that courts have admitted in some other cases. And the danger of unfair prejudice did not outweigh the exhibit’s probative value under the majority’s new standard of rarely questioning a court’s ruling under rule 403. Finally, requiring Oldson to produce evidence of an unrelated assault to rebut a motive inference was not unfairly prejudicial because he could have cross-examined the State’s witness about the extrinsic evidence without relying on propensity inferences about his character. (c) The Majority Opinion Wrongly Upholds the Admission of Exhibit 266 The court’s admission of exhibit 266 to show Oldson’s motive for murdering Beard was wrong for three reasons. It required speculative reasoning when offered as direct evidence of Oldson’s motive. It required propensity reasoning when offered as circumstantial evidence of Oldson’s motive. Finally, the jurors were highly likely to have engaged in speculative or propensity reasoning because they did not know that Oldson was probably writing about the extrinsic Burwell incident. And Oldson could not have presented the extrinsic evidence without painting himself as a person who was likely to have committed the charged crime. The majority ignores much of our precedent to uphold the admission of this single exhibit in a single case. I disagree with its reasoning, and I particularly disagree with its suggestion that we should abdicate our role to uphold our evidentiary standards and give blanket deference to a trial court’s rulings under rule 403. (i) Exhibit 266 Was Too Speculative to Show Oldson Was Writing About Killing Beard The circumstances known to the court showed that Oldson was likely writing about his incarceration for assaulting a woman in Burwell. That offense was the closest in time to his - 837 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 journal entry and the only crime that had actually “got [him] in trouble.” So he was more likely to have been writing about that crime. And because the court knew these circumstances, it knew that the jurors would be speculating to conclude that Oldson was writing about why he murdered Beard. For that reason alone, rule 403 should have precluded its admission. The unfair prejudice from drawing a speculative—and thus unreasonable—inference about Oldson’s motive outweighed any probative value. Although the majority states that the court was required to consider other evidence when considering whether to admit exhibit 266, it apparently does not include in that mandate the court’s knowledge that when Oldson wrote this, he was serving a sentence for assaulting another woman. Instead, the only evidence that the majority thinks the trial court should have considered are Oldson’s other journal entries. But Oldson’s other journal entries fail to show that he was writing about why he murdered Beard in exhibit 266. His labels and silence in the other exhibits are too inconsistent to show that he used a pattern of cryptic references for Beard or that he omitted her name whenever he wrote about her. And most of them are simply not incriminating. So they do not show that Oldson was secretly writing about why he murdered Beard in exhibit 266. It is only because the majority ignores the speculation problem in detecting a pattern in Oldson’s references to Beard that it can avoid the speculation problem in reasoning that Oldson was writing about Beard in exhibit 266. Equally important, Oldson’s full statement in exhibit 266 showed that he was ruminating about his problems with women generally. Only by extracting the three selected sentences from their context could the State convincingly argue that Oldson was writing about why he murdered Beard. So I disagree with the majority’s reasoning that there is no support in Oldson’s journal to show that the admission of exhibit 266 was misleading and unfairly prejudicial. And if these statements are unambiguously direct evidence of the - 838 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 reason that Oldson killed Beard, a reader must wonder why the State waited so long to prosecute him when they were aware of his statements soon after he wrote each journal entry. (ii) If Jurors Did Not Speculate That Oldson Was Writing About Beard, They Relied on Propensity Inferences to Find Exhibit 266 Relevant to Prove Motive As a reminder, exhibit 266 comprised this statement: “Maybe the problem has been my making girls too high a priority - and having real problems with accepting rejection. Which may be how all this got started. ‘Get it any way you can.’” The majority incorrectly states that the probative value of this statement depended upon a finding that Oldson was writing about Beard. Remember, the court instructed the jurors only that exhibit 266 was admissible to help them decide Oldson’s motive for killing Beard. It did not condition their consideration of the evidence on a finding that Oldson was writing about why he killed Beard, and Oldson never referred to Beard in the statement. Because it was not direct evidence of Oldson’s guilt, its admission allowed the jury to find it relevant to prove Oldson’s propensity to commit assaults against women who rejected him. So even if the jurors did not speculatively infer that the statement was direct evidence of why Oldson killed Beard, they would have considered it for the State’s original purpose in offering it at a pretrial hearing: to show that Oldson was upset by a woman’s rejection, which coincided with its theory that Oldson murdered Beard when she rejected his sexual advances. Other than speculating that exhibit 266 was direct evidence of Oldson’s motive for killing Beard, the jurors could have only considered it to be proof of his motive by reasoning that he was probably acting in conformity with a character trait. That trait was Oldson’s propensity to “‘[g]et it any way you can’” if he was rejected. But this theory of logical relevance conflicted with rule 404(1)’s forbidden propensity reasoning. - 839 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 Apart from exceptions that do not apply, rule 404(1) provides that “[e]vidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion . . . .” The majority rebukes Oldson for extracting the meaning of his statement “from any context that it referred to Oldson’s actions with Beard on the night of her disappearance and his motive for those actions.” But it is the majority that has extracted the statement from its context, both from the context of his full statement in exhibit 266 and from the circumstances known to the trial court. The majority, with a surgeon’s scalpel, even attempts to extract his statement that he had problems accepting rejection—which it declares is not a character trait—from his statement that his attitude of “‘[g]et it any way you can’” got him into trouble. Nonetheless, the jury would have got the point that the two traits were connected. The prosecutor specifically argued in closing that exhibit 266 provided a glimpse of Oldson’s mindset and showed that he was unable to accept Beard’s rejection of him. And the State argues on appeal that Oldson’s journal writings “reflect that Oldson got in trouble because he [could] not handle being rejected.”49 The majority apparently recognizes the propensity problem in the State’s argument because it resorts to again undermining our rule 404 jurisprudence. It states, “If character evidence is admitted for a proper purpose, then, ipso facto, it is not admitted for the purpose of showing propensity” and rule 404(1) does not apply. But regardless of whether subsection (1) or (2) of rule 404 governs Oldson’s statement, it was not independently relevant as circumstantial evidence of his motive. Under that theory of relevance, the primary purpose of presenting the evidence was to establish Oldson’s propensity to do whatever it takes to get sex if rejected—his character trait. 49 Brief for appellee at 18. - 840 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 Only by establishing this inference could the State use the statement to show his motive for the charged crime. And we have previously held the State cannot rely on propensity reasoning to show motive.50 In sum, the jurors could only conclude that Oldson was writing about why he killed Beard through an inference resting on speculation. Alternatively, they could only conclude that his writing was circumstantial evidence of his motive through a propensity inference about his character. Either inference was unreasonable. Because the inferences were unreasonable, the evidence’s potential for unfair prejudice outweighed its probative value. So exhibit 266 was inadmissible under both rules 404 and 403. And it was inadmissible for the additional reason that Oldson could not rebut the inference without presenting evidence of his extrinsic misconduct with similarities to the charged crime. (iii) A Defendant Should Not Have to Rebut an Unreasonable Inference by Presenting Damning Evidence The majority dismisses Oldson’s argument that he could not rebut the inference created by the admission of exhibit 266 as a tough strategical choice. It cites cases in which a court upheld the admission of flight or escape evidence to show a defendant’s consciousness of guilt even though the defendant was sought or being held for more than one crime. But these cases primarily show that even when the defendant has committed multiple crimes, the circumstantial evidence is admissible if it reasonably supports one of two inferences: (1) the defendant was primarily attempting to evade capture or escape custody for the charged crime51 or (2) the defendant 50 See, State v. Payne-McCoy, 284 Neb. 302, 818 N.W.2d 608 (2012); Sanchez, supra note 4. 51 See, e.g., United States v. Kalish, 690 F.2d 1144 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Boyle, 675 F.2d 430 (1st Cir. 1982); State v. Hughes, 596 S.W.2d 723 (Mo. 1980); Fentis v. State, 582 S.W.2d 779 (Tex. Crim. App. 1976). - 841 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 was attempting to evade capture or escape custody for all of his crimes.52 Some of the cases that the majority relies on are older and arguably inconsistent with the majority of cases that require courts to be cautious in admitting evidence of a defendant’s alleged flight or evasive conduct. But to the extent they are inconsistent, they should be interpreted to mean that a trial court must be sensitive to the facts of the case.53 To the extent they broadly authorize the admission of circumstantial evidence even if it allows jurors to speculate that the evidence shows a defendant’s guilt, the cited cases are contrary to our own case law. Here, the State has not met the reasonable inference requirement. Similarly, in rejecting Oldson’s argument that exhibit 266 was character evidence, the majority relies on hate crime cases or cases in which a defendant expressed a desire to kill or harm a random member of a group.54 Those cases are also distinguishable. It is true that courts have sometimes admitted evidence showing a defendant’s hatred of a distinct group or desire to harm a random member of a group to show the defendant’s motive or intent for a seemingly random act of violence. But these fact patterns are distinguishable and courts should analyze them on a case-by-case basis.55 Unlike the facts in People v. Greenlee,56 Oldson’s journal entries did not show a 52 See, e.g., United States v. De Parias, 805 F.2d 1447 (11th Cir. 1986), overruled on other grounds, U.S. v. Kaplan, 171 F.3d 1351 (11th Cir. 1999); Boyle, supra note 51; People v. Remiro, 89 Cal. App. 3d 809, 153 Cal. Rptr. 89 (1979); Fulford v. State, 221 Ga. 257, 144 S.E.2d 370 (1965). 53 See Escobar, supra note 42. 54 See, People v. Griffin, 224 P.3d 292 (Colo. App. 2009); Masters, supra note 19; People v. Hoffman, 225 Mich. App. 103, 570 N.W.2d 146 (1997); State v. Crumb, 277 N.J. Super. 311, 649 A.2d 879 (1994). 55 Compare Masters, supra note 19, with Kaufman v. People, 202 P.3d 542 (Colo. 2009). 56 People v. Greenlee, 200 P.3d 363 (Colo. 2009). - 842 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 desire to randomly kill a woman. Nor did they show his hatred of women as a group. So the majority’s discussion of such cases amounts to a distraction. What matters here is that inferring motive from exhibit 266 required an unreasonable inference. And the majority recognizes that Oldson could not rebut that inference without presenting evidence of his extrinsic misconduct with similarities to the State’s theory of his conduct in committing the charged crime. So the unfair rebuttal issue was an additional reason to conclude that the exhibit’s potential for unfair prejudice outweighed any probative value. The rebuttal dilemma underlies the requirement that the evidence used to show a defendant’s consciousness of guilt must reasonably support each necessary inference in the chain of logic for that proof. The Fourth Circuit discussed this problem in a flight case where the defendant left the jurisdiction immediately after an investigator left a note at his residence for him to contact the investigator. In United States v. Beahm,57 the court held that a trial court may not instruct the jury on flight as evidence of guilt when the evidence fails to show the defendant knew the government was investigating him for the charged crime: Otherwise, defendant would bear an unconscionable burden of offering not only an innocent explanation for his departure but guilty ones as well in order to dispel the inference to which the government would apparently be entitled that an investigation calling upon defendant could have but one purpose, namely, his apprehension for the crime for which he is ultimately charged. If the government wishes to offer evidence of flight to demonstrate guilt, it must ensure that each link in the chain of inferences leading to that conclusion is sturdily supported.58 57 United States v. Beahm, 664 F.2d 414 (4th Cir. 1981). 58 Id. at 420 (emphasis supplied). - 843 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 Other courts have similarly reasoned that the introduction of propensity evidence can unfairly put a defendant in a position of explaining extrinsic misconduct or a character trait.59 That concern should surely apply when the trial court knew, or should have known, that the State’s evidence only supported a fact of consequence through an unreasonable inference. Here, requiring Oldson to prove that the inference was unreasonable would have only strengthened the propensity inference in the jury’s eyes. This is not a tough strategical choice; it is an unfair burden. I conclude the trial court erred in admitting exhibit 266. 5. Court Improperly A dmitted Exhibits 268, 269, and 271 (a) Oldson’s Meaning in Exhibit 268 Was Speculative (i) Trial Court’s Ruling Twenty-seven days before he was released from jail in 1990, Oldson again ruminated about the Beard investigation: “Well, there it is. What’s next, I wonder? It’s gettin’ closer - and G.J. and the Fried Eggplant gang aren’t movin’ - although they still could, conceivably. How, I don’t know - in fact, [illegible] wonder if there is any way he could even manufacture something? I doubt it.” In this statement, I accept that the initials “G.J.” are reasonably interpreted as a reference to the Valley County Attorney at that time and that the “Fried Eggplant gang” was a derogatory label for the investigators. The court ruled that exhibit 268 was admissible to show Oldson’s knowledge that he was a suspect and to show why he might have wanted to get rid of evidence “as can be inferred from [exhibit 267].” 59 See, Kaufman, supra note 55; State v. Loebach, 310 N.W.2d 58 (Minn. 1981). - 844 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 (ii) Trial Court Erred in Admitting Exhibit 268 and the Majority Wrongly Upholds the Ruling The court erred in admitting exhibit 268 to show Oldson’s knowledge that he was a suspect and to show why he needed to get rid of something. Oldson only needed to dispose of evidence connected to Beard’s murder if he was guilty of committing that crime. But exhibit 268 did not reasonably support an inference that Oldson had guilty knowledge of Beard’s murder. Oldson only wondered if the Valley County Attorney might still charge him with a crime and if investigators would manufacture evidence for that purpose. An innocent man might also wonder if investigators would manufacture evidence against him when he knew he was a suspect. And the majority concedes that Oldson’s statement in exhibit 268 was “largely exculpatory.” Nonetheless, it concludes that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting exhibit 268 under rule 403. Not so. The majority’s statement that exhibit 268 was largely exculpatory shows that an innocent interpretation was the most probable interpretation and, minimally, an equally speculative interpretation. Nor does the majority point to any fact of consequence or intermediate inference for which exhibit 268 was probative. Oldson’s meaning in exhibit 268 was too speculative to prove a fact of consequence. So the court erred in admitting evidence that allowed the jurors to speculate that the exhibit showed Oldson’s guilt of murdering Beard. (b) Oldson’s Meaning in Exhibit 269 Was Speculative (i) Trial Court’s Ruling In this excerpt, Oldson disparaged the investigators for not investigating whether anyone else was involved in Beard’s disappearance and stated that he was going to “get away”: Fried Eggplant gang ain’t makin’ it - they’re gonna slip and fall and just generally fu-- up! That’s nice . . . - 845 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 I’m gonna get away and I’ll bet it breaks their yellow hearts - they’re so dead-set that I did this and they’re not gonna look any farther unless they are forced to. Well; now, they’d best look elsewhere, ‘cuz I refuse to be a part of this charade any longer. I’m well fed up with this tomfoolery - they can stick it in their asses. So there. The court ruled that exhibit 269 was admissible for the same reason as exhibit 268: to show Oldson’s knowledge that he was a suspect and to show why he might have wanted to get rid of evidence “as can be inferred from [exhibit 267].” (ii) Trial Court Erred in Admitting Exhibit 269 and the Majority’s Reasoning Is Incorrect As with exhibit 268, the majority seems to agree with Oldson that exhibit 269 was largely exculpatory: “Oldson opines in exhibits 268 and 269 that the only way law enforcement could bring charges against him is if it manufactured evidence.” Nonetheless, it concludes that exhibit 269 is probative of Oldson’s guilt. It reasons that a fact finder could infer from exhibit 269 that Oldson thought he would “‘get away,’ because law enforcement was going to make mistakes.” So the majority implicitly reasons that exhibit 269 could show his consciousness of guilt by interpreting the statement to mean that Oldson believed he would “‘get away’” with murder. It concludes that the court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the evidence under rule 403. The problem with the majority’s reasoning is that the trial court knew that Oldson was in jail for the unrelated crime in Burwell when he wrote this. Oldson made this statement on August 14, 1990, 23 days before the State released him from jail. The day before making the statement in exhibit 269, Oldson wrote this entry: Every sound I hear that I cannot directly identify, and every time anything questionable happens with Woody or some other law . . . person, makes me suspect that they are talking about me, or plotting some way to keep me - 846 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 here forever. I have to imagine that G.J. is working feverishly to prevent my slipping out of here. I bet he can’t stand the idea that I’m going to “get away”. Too bad - and he better leave me the f--- alone. Death is no stranger to me, Army and all. When viewed in the context of Oldson’s journal entry on the preceding day, his statement that “I’m gonna get away” is reasonably interpreted to mean that he was going to “get out of jail,” instead of going to “get away with murder.” Even without the context of his previous day’s entry, the majority concedes the statement was largely exculpatory. But because the jurors did not know that Oldson was in jail for another crime when he wrote this statement, they were highly likely to draw the conclusion that he had guilty knowledge of the charged crime. Remember, the jurors only knew that Woodgate was sheriff of Valley County in 1989 when Beard disappeared and that he had obtained Oldson’s writings between December 1989 and September 1990. Because the context of the writings was unknown to the jurors, the danger was high they would speculate that Woodgate had obtained them through a search during the investigation of Beard’s murder. Disconnected from the context of Oldson’s incarceration for unrelated crime, the excerpt supported a damning inference that Oldson was writing about getting away with murder. But the trial court knew the actual context and should have excluded exhibit 268 because it would allow the jurors to speculate that Oldson believed he would get away with murdering Beard. Had they known the context, they could have just as easily speculated that he thought he would get out of jail before investigators manufactured evidence against him. (c) Oldson’s Meaning in Exhibit 271 Was Speculative (i) Trial Court’s Ruling Sixteen days before he was released, Oldson wrote the following journal entry: - 847 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 Ha, Ha! [The Valley County Attorney] is a stupid slut! He will never find anything no matter how hard he looks because their [sic] is nothing to find. And he’s too stupid to manufacture anything. He’s just doo-fah and he’ll always be scum. I’ve beaten him! Of course, there was never any doubt in anyone’s . . . mind that I would . . . if he ever turned it into this kind of thing. So, hah!! The court ruled that the statement was relevant to show Oldson’s knowledge that he was a suspect and to show why he might have wanted to get rid of evidence “as can be inferred from [exhibit 267].” (ii) The Majority Incorrectly Affirms Court’s Ruling As with Oldson’s other journal excerpts, exhibit 271 could only show why Oldson would need to dispose of evidence if it supported a reasonable inference that he had killed Beard. The majority states that Oldson’s statement is probative of his guilt because a fact finder could infer that “law enforcement would not find any incriminating evidence, because Oldson had particular knowledge about the evidence.” The majority implicitly reasons that he meant investigators would not find any evidence because he has destroyed it or hid it so investigators could not find it. That interpretation, however, conflicts with the trial court’s ruling that it was admissible to show why he needed to dispose of something when he got out of jail. It is true that the statement could have meant that Oldson was confident investigators would not find the evidence that he had destroyed or hid. But it could have meant that investigators would not find incriminating evidence because he was innocent. And in holding that exhibit 271 was admissible to show Oldson’s consciousness of guilt, the majority again ignores the absolute speculation required to draw either conclusion. Because it did not support a reasonable inference of guilt, the court should have excluded it under rule 403. - 848 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 6. Trial Court Erred in A dmitting Exhibit 270 (a) Trial Court’s Ruling In exhibit 270, Oldson expressed his attraction to the stomach of listed persons with whom he had had “experience”: Love that gut, tummy, belly, abdomen, stomach, midriff, middle, torso, etc. Extensive experience comes with Sandy, Dondie, C.B., and Linda. Other mediocre experiences with Robin, Cathie, Shirley,(o) Shawna, Alyce, K.P.,([illegible]) Donna H., Irma S., Allison, Ronda (from G.I. 1980), Mary Jane, Teresa, 2116; resident upstairs; 1980, Salinas 1987, Lincoln 48th/Leighton(1989), Darlene, Connie, Pam, Tammy S., Cami G, Bonnie M, Carolyn D, et. al. List remains incomplete. Will add more as more comes available. For now, must rate C.B. as most gratifying, Sandy as most comfortable, Teresa as prettiest, maybe Darlene. Just don’t know - they[’]re all so nice. YUH! Go on and gitcha some! In its written order, the court admitted exhibit 270 for the following reason: State is offering this excerpt as inculpatory evidence that contradicts exculpatory statements by [Oldson] regarding his relationship with Cathy Beard and his prior sexual experience with women. Further, this is not character evidence. The State is not offering this to prove he had a sexual relationship with these women and then murdered them, or even that [Oldson] actually had sexual contacts with these women. They are statements by [Oldson] offered to disprove an exculpatory statement made by [Oldson] that he did not have sex until he was married and/or that he did not have sex with . . . Beard. The court overruled Oldson’s objections. It implicitly agreed with the State that a limiting instruction could cure any prejudicial effect from the admission of exhibit 270. But contrary to the court’s ruling in its order, before the State published exhibit 270, the court gave this limiting instruction: - 849 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 Jurors, you are now seeing evidence that is being submitted to you for a specific limited purpose. This evidence is being offered for the limited purpose to help you decide what if any knowledge [Oldson] had of Cathy Beard, the nature and extent of any relationship he and Cathy Beard may have had, and for the purpose of evaluating [Oldson’s] credibility with respect to any other statements that he made. You must consider this evidence only for this limited purpose. Under this limiting instruction, the court admitted exhibit 270 only as proof that Oldson was lying about not having a sexual relationship with Beard. The instruction precluded the jurors from considering the statement as proof that he had lied when he said he was a virgin until he got married. The majority incorrectly states that the court did not give this limiting instruction specifically for exhibit 270. The prosecutor had already published exhibits 263 through 269, and the court gave this instruction immediately after the prosecutor asked for leave to publish exhibit 270 to the jury. Right after the court gave the instruction, the prosecutor stated, “And, Judge, just so the record’s clear, that instruction pertains to this particular exhibit that’s on the screen now, Exhibit 270.” The court responded, “It does.” (b) The Majority’s Reasoning The majority states that the court implicitly determined that exhibit 270 was logically relevant to show that Oldson had sexual contact with Beard on the night that she disappeared. It rejects Oldson’s argument that exhibit 270 could simply be a reference to his sexual fantasies. It states that false exculpatory statements of fact which are sufficient to justify an inference of guilt are admissible even if they could be explained another way. It concludes that exhibit 270 was sufficient to support an inference that Oldson made false exculpatory statements of fact when he said that “he was a virgin, Oldson and Beard had apparently not had a sexual relationship prior to - 850 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 her disappearance, and . . . Beard rejected Oldson’s sexual advances on the night of her disappearance.” It also concludes that exhibit 270 did not present a rule 404 problem because Oldson’s statement proved conduct that was intrinsic to the charged crime: Rather, it concerns an act intrinsic to the crime. The State’s theory of the case was that Oldson killed Beard in the course of a sexual assault. That the jury did not convict on that concurrent assault charge does not retrospectively change the nature of the evidence to be of “other acts.” In short, the majority concludes that the statement shows both that Oldson had a sexual relationship with Beard before she disappeared and that he sexually assaulted her on the night that she disappeared. Although Oldson referred to other people with whom he had had “stomach” experiences, the majority states that the other names in exhibit 270 were relevant only to show that the sole person Oldson referred to by initials was “C.B.” The majority concludes that Oldson was not prejudiced by evidence suggesting that he had similar sexual experiences with other people: “While promiscuity or even sexual fantasies might be considered by some people to be reflective of a bad character trait, it is hardly the kind of character trait that would compel a jury by improper propensity reasoning to convict a defendant of murder.” So for the other listed names, Oldson’s stated experience with them could be real or imagined. There was no deviant sexual propensity suggested in the excerpt because his reference to a “female body part simply clarified the sexual nature of the other sentences. This illustrated that the ‘experiences’ Oldson referred to throughout the excerpt were sexual experiences, either real or imagined.” (Emphasis supplied.) But for “C.B.,” Oldson’s implied sexual experience was with Beard, it was real, and it happened on the night that Beard disappeared. - 851 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 (c) The Majority’s Reasoning Is Wrong The majority’s reasoning is contrary to the court’s ruling and internally inconsistent. The court did not allow the jury to consider the evidence as proof that Oldson had lied when he said he was a virgin until he married. Nor did it admit this evidence as a confession, i.e., to show that Oldson sexually assaulted Beard on the night that she disappeared or on any other night. And nothing in his excerpt refers to an assault or to sexual contact with Beard on the night she disappeared. Under the court’s limiting instruction, the jury’s consideration of exhibit 270 was limited to determining whether Oldson lied when he told others that he had never had a sexual relationship with Beard. The court did not implicitly determine that exhibit 270 was relevant to show that Oldson had sexual contact with Beard on the night that she disappeared. It explicitly instructed the jurors to consider exhibit 270 only for deciding “what if any knowledge [Oldson] had of . . . Beard, the nature and extent of any relationship he and . . . Beard may have had, and for the purpose of evaluating [Oldson’s] credibility with respect to any other statements that he made.” So the jury was not asked to decide whether exhibit 270 showed Oldson had sexual contact with Beard on the night she disappeared. Even if the court had given such an instruction, exhibit 270 is completely speculative to prove Oldson had sexual contact with Beard on the night she disappeared. To begin with, it is too speculative to determine that Oldson was even writing about Beard. In this regard, the majority incorrectly states that Oldson only referred to “C.B.” by initials. He also referred to a “K.P.” by initials. The word in the superscripted parenthetical beside the initials “K.P.” is illegible and its meaning unclear. But other names in this excerpt also have superscripted parentheticals with no comprehensible common meaning. So to the extent that the majority has interpreted the superscript beside the initials “K.P.” to be a last name, it - 852 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 is speculating. Additionally, as Oldson’s attorney argued at trial, Oldson also referred to “Cathie” in this excerpt. He also referred to “Cathie” in two additional excerpts and directly referred to “Beard” in another excerpt. So the trial court knew, or should have known, that allowing the jurors to determine that “C.B.” referred to Beard would be a speculative inference. The other listed names did not cure that speculation. And because it was speculative to conclude that “C.B.” was a reference to Beard, the inference that Oldson was writing about his sexual experiences with her was unreasonable under rule 403. The majority implausibly doubles down on this speculation. Even if Oldson’s statement in exhibit 270 had been sufficient to show that he had a sexual relationship with Beard, it would have been too speculative to show that he had sexually assaulted her on the night she disappeared. The trial court at least recognized the speculative inferences required for that conclusion because it did not instruct the jury to consider it for that purpose. Even the majority recognizes that some of Oldson’s listed experiences could have been fantasies. But it denies that Oldson’s experience with “C.B.” could have been a fantasy: “[I]t would not follow that because Oldson’s sexual ‘experiences’ with the other women listed were fantasies, the ‘most gratifying’ ‘experience’ with ‘C.B.’ was also a fantasy.” Actually, it does follow. There was no logical reason to conclude that Oldson’s gratifying experience with “C.B.” was different in kind from his “comfortable” experience with Sandy. And by conceding that some of these “experiences” could have been fantasies, the majority undermines its own reasoning that Oldson’s experience with “C.B.” was real—even more so its reasoning that Oldson was writing about sexually assaulting Beard on the night she disappeared. And exhibit 270 was inadmissible character evidence under rule 404. To prove that Oldson was lying, the State needed to show that Oldson had a sexual relationship with Beard some - 853 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 time before her disappearance. Contrary to the majority’s statement, the court did not explicitly inform the jurors that they could not consider whether Oldson had sexual contact with any of the other women listed. It instructed them that they could consider exhibit 270 only to determine whether Oldson had a sexual relationship with Beard and to evaluate his credibility on other statements. Nor did the court instruct the jurors to consider the other listed names only to determine whether Oldson’s reference to “C.B.” was a reference to Beard. So the majority incorrectly reasons that the other names were only relevant to show that “C.B.” was a reference to Beard and that this relevance did not depend upon whether Oldson’s experiences with the other listed people were real or fantasies. The only way that the jurors could have concluded from exhibit 270 that Oldson had a sexual relationship with Beard before she disappeared was by reasoning that he had actual sexual experiences with all of the people whom he listed in exhibit 270. Exhibit 270 is either too speculative to prove that his “experiences” with any of the listed people were real sexual experiences or it proves that they all were. So exhibit 270 put before the jurors Oldson’s sexual experiences with many people, accompanied by the strong suggestion that he rated those experiences based on his unusual sexual preference for stomachs. Finally, both the court’s written order and limiting instruction show that it considered exhibit 270 relevant to prove Oldson’s extrinsic sexual acts with Beard to prove his consciousness of guilt: i.e., that he was lying when he said that he had never had a sexual relationship with Beard. So under rule 404(3), before admitting the statement, the court had to find by clear and convincing evidence that the State had proved the extrinsic sexual act(s). It did not. This fatal procedural defect is apparently why the majority unconvincingly opines that exhibit 270 was sufficient to prove that Oldson sexually assaulted Beard on the night she disappeared. Only by claiming that the - 854 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 alleged sexual contact was intrinsic to the murder charge—i.e., Oldson was writing about sexually assaulting Beard on the night he murdered her—can the majority avoid the procedural requirement under rule 404(3). But even if that procedural defect did not exist, the majority opinion is unpersuasive. The question is not whether the State’s evidence can support any inference supporting the proof for which the evidence was offered. The question is whether it can support a reasonable inference that does not rest on speculation or propensity reasoning. In sum, I conclude that the court erred in admitting exhibit 270 to show that Oldson had lied when he said he never had a sexual relationship with Beard. Concluding that Oldson was writing about Beard in this excerpt required speculation. Even if exhibit 270 could show that he was writing about Beard, it could not show that he had sexually assaulted her on the night she disappeared. And concluding that Oldson was writing about a sexual experience with Beard rested on the inference that Oldson was writing about his sexual experiences with all of the people he listed in exhibit 270. The inference that he had listed his sexual experiences could not be separated from his first statement, showing an unusual sexual preference for the stomach. In context, exhibit 270 listed his sexual experiences that coincided with his stomach fetish. The potential for jurors to reason that he acted in accordance with a deviant sexual trait outweighed any probative value of speculative evidence.