Opinion ID: 4509391
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: [1] Whether jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law. When dispositive issues on appeal present questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion irrespective of the decision of the court below.2 [2] Jury instructions are subject to the harmless error rule, and an erroneous jury instruction requires reversal only if the error adversely affects the substantial rights of the complaining party.3 [3] Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty verdict surely would have been rendered, but, rather, whether the actual guilty verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely unattributable to the error.4 [4] To establish reversible error from a court’s refusal to give a requested instruction, an appellant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to give the tendered instruction.5 [5] When examining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after 2 State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40, 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017). 3 Rodriguez v. Surgical Assocs., 298 Neb. 573, 905 N.W.2d 247 (2018). 4 State v. Huerta, 26 Neb. App. 170, 917 N.W.2d 175 (2018). 5 State v. Mueller, 301 Neb. 778, 920 N.W.2d 424 (2018), modified on denial of rehearing 302 Neb. 51, 921 N.W.2d 584 (2019). - 659 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 304 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DADY Cite as 304 Neb. 649 viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.6 [6] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination whether the court admitted evidence over a hearsay objection or excluded evidence on hearsay grounds.7 [7] Evidentiary questions committed to the discretion of the trial judge,8 orders denying a motion for new trial,9 and claims of excessive sentencing10 are all reviewed for abuse of discretion. An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.11