Opinion ID: 1296234
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: legal impact of directed verdict in criminal trial

Text: Wilhelm further argues in conjunction with his first assignment of error that the directed verdict in the 1998 criminal case constituted absolute proof from a previous murder prosecution that the district court concluded no homicide had been committed, and accordingly the very same evidence before the probate court was not legally sufficient to prove `felonious' and `intentional' killing by the greater weight of the evidence. Brief for appellant at 26-27. Wilhelm contends that the probate court must give conclusive effect to the directed verdict in Wilhelm's second criminal trial because the district court had to find a `complete failure' of the evidence on an essential element of the crime charged, or that the evidence was so doubtful in character and lacking in probative value that a finding of guilt on such evidence could not be sustained. Id. at 27. See, State v. Canady, 263 Neb. 552, 641 N.W.2d 43 (2002); State v. Johnson, 261 Neb. 1001, 627 N.W.2d 753 (2001). Wilhelm's contention is that because he was acquitted of killing Wanda as the result of the directed verdict in the 1998 trial, the probate court is legally precluded from reaching a different conclusion on the same evidence in that the probate court had no new inculpatory evidence, and the very same evidence submitted at the second criminal trial was before the probate court. Brief for appellant at 26-27. Wilhelm then asserts that where a district judge dismisses a criminal prosecution upon the State's rest, the court has, by definition, found a failure of proof by the greater weight of the evidence. Id. at 27. However, we cannot reach the merits of Wilhelm's argument as it relates to the directed verdict because this court cannot determine from this record whether, as Wilhelm asserts, the inculpatory evidence submitted at the 1998 criminal trial was the very same evidence before the probate court. Id. at 26-27. The order of the district court directing a verdict for Wilhelm states that the evidence upon which the directed verdict was granted was presented to the court between January 12 and 16, 1998. The only criminal record before this court is from the first criminal trial, which took place from August 18 through August 22, 1997, ending in a mistrial. Aside from the witnesses who testified at the probate hearing that their evidence was the same in the two previous criminal trials, the record does not show what evidence was presented at the 1998 criminal trial. The only identifiable portion of the 1998 criminal trial contained in the record is the order of the district court directing a verdict. The record does not disclose either a list of witnesses for the State in the 1998 trial or the content of their testimony. Additionally, while there are stipulations in the record, none of these stipulations address whether the evidence at the 1997 trial was the very same evidence offered in the 1998 trial. While Wilhelm's counsel asserted at oral argument that exhibits 15 through 78 submitted at the probate hearing were common to both the 1997 and 1998 trials, this assertion, which cannot be determined from the record, would still not establish that these exhibits represent all of the evidence from the 1998 trial. Wilhelm has failed to present either this court or the probate court below with a record demonstrating that the evidence adduced by the State in the 1998 trial was the very same evidence adduced by Jeremy in the 2001 probate proceeding. It is incumbent upon the party appealing to present a record which supports the errors assigned. J.B. Contracting Servs. v. Universal Surety Co., 261 Neb. 586, 624 N.W.2d 13 (2001); In re Application of SID No. 384, 259 Neb. 351, 609 N.W.2d 679 (2000). Such presentation is necessary because [m]eaningful appellate review requires a record that elucidates the factors contributing to the lower court judge's decision. J.B. Contracting Servs., 261 Neb. at 593, 624 N.W.2d at 19-20, citing Van Ackeren v. Nebraska Bd. of Parole, 251 Neb. 477, 558 N.W.2d 48 (1997). Accordingly, this argument is without merit.