Opinion ID: 1292055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Sole Cause Instruction

Text: Anderson argues that the statement made in jury instruction No. 3, If . . . you find that the acts or omissions of Jaime Hillman were the sole cause of her serious bodily injury, you must find Defendant not guilty should have instead been written as sole proximate cause. In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. State v. Weaver, 267 Neb. 826, 677 N.W.2d 502 (2004). Anderson has failed to demonstrate any prejudice as a result of this omission. As the Court of Appeals described in Bartlett, [the victim's] actions were not a defense to this charge so long as [the defendant's] conduct was a contributing factor, i.e., also a proximate cause. State v. Bartlett, 3 Neb.App. 218, 229, 525 N.W.2d 237, 244 (1994). While flawed, the instruction in this case was not prejudicial.