Opinion ID: 2791285
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Complete Defense

Text: Stricklin relies on Holmes v. South Carolina35 for the assertion that the exclusion of the confidential informant’s statements violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense. In Holmes, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defend­ant’s right to present a complete defense was violated when the trial court used an arbitrary rule to exclude evidence of third-party guilt. However, in State v. Phillips,36 we addressed a similar argument and concluded that the exclusion of a hearsay statement under the hearsay rule did not violate a defendant’s right to present a complete defense. In the case at bar, the evidence of the confidential informant’s statements was properly excluded under the hearsay rule. Thus, Stricklin’s right to present a complete defense was not violated. 35 Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 126 S. Ct. 1727, 164 L. Ed. 2d 503 (2006). 36 See Phillips, supra note 25. Nebraska Advance Sheets STATE v. STRICKLIN 559 Cite as 290 Neb. 542