Opinion ID: 1998658
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Consequence of Erroneous Rulings

Text: Left for consideration, then, is the consequence of the erroneous admission of exhibits 12 and 17. In a jury trial of a criminal case, irrespective of whether an error in admitting or excluding evidence reaches a constitutional dimension, an erroneous evidential ruling results in prejudice to a defendant unless the State demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Flores, 245 Neb. 179, 512 N.W.2d 128 (1994); State v. Hughes, 244 Neb. 810, 510 N.W.2d 33 (1993), cert. denied ___ U.S. ___, 114 S.Ct. 2738, 129 L.Ed.2d 859 (1994); State v. Drinkwalter, 242 Neb. 40, 493 N.W.2d 319 (1992). In determining whether error in admitting evidence was harmless, an appellate court bases its decision on the entire record in determining whether the evidence materially influenced the jury in a verdict adverse to the defendant. State v. Hankins, 232 Neb. 608, 441 N.W.2d 854 (1989). The improper admission of evidence is harmless error and does not require reversal if the evidence is cumulative and there is other competent evidence to support the conviction. State v. Nielsen, 243 Neb. 202, 498 N.W.2d 527 (1993); State v. Timmermann, 240 Neb. 74, 480 N.W.2d 411 (1992); State v. Guy, 227 Neb. 610, 419 N.W.2d 152 (1988). Given exhibit 13 and the mass of sexually explicit material contained in exhibit 15, the material contained in exhibits 12 and 17 is cumulative and pales into insignificance. As the remaining competent evidence is sufficient to support Lee's convictions, the erroneous admission of exhibits 12 and 17 was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.