Opinion ID: 2168808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: testimony of gene simon, sandy simon, handley, and clemons

Text: Finally, Canbaz argues that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the testimony of Canbaz' neighbors and coworkers regarding statements Canbaz made to them about wanting to kill Peralta and/or her family. Gene Simon testified that after Peralta moved out in early July 1998, [Canbaz] mentioned on several occasions that he would like to kill her or that he wanted to kill her.... [H]e mentioned he had bought five pairs of handcuffs and he was going to kill each and every member of her family. Sandy Simon, Gene Simon's wife, testified that after Peralta moved out, [Canbaz] confronted me outside in my driveway very angry, upset; and repeatedly [sic], I'm going to kill Debbie and her family. Handley, a coworker of Canbaz, testified that the day after Peralta moved out, Canbaz told her that he had been driving around all night looking for [Peralta] trying to find her.... He said that he was going to hurt her and that she wasn't going to get away with it and that he would make her pay.... He said that he had a gun. Clemons, another coworker, testified that she had one conversation with Canbaz sometime after Peralta moved out, where [Canbaz] talked about wanting to hurt [Peralta]. He said that at one point, he would kill her and then kill himself. When Canbaz picked up his paycheck on August 31, he told Clemons by the end of his vacation, it would be all over. Canbaz argues that these statements are irrelevant and prejudicial evidence of prior bad acts under Neb.Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) (Reissue 1995). Prior bad act evidence is evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, aside from the crime charged, which tend to prove the character of a person and to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith when committing the charged crime. Id. See, also, State v. McManus, 257 Neb. 1, 594 N.W.2d 623 (1999). Prior to trial, the State argued that § 27-404 was inapplicable to the disputed statements because the statements were relevant only to this crime, and not evidence of any other prior crimes. See State v. McManus, supra . However, the court determined that § 27-403 applied, and held a pretrial hearing regarding the disputed testimony. The court determined that the disputed evidence was admissible, subject to a limiting instruction that such evidence should be considered by the jury only to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident in the crimes charged against defendant. See § 27-404(2). The testimony of Canbaz' neighbors and coworkers is not evidence of prior unrelated bad acts under § 27-404(2). It is relevant evidence that Canbaz murdered Peralta intentionally and with premeditation. The disputed evidence was offered by the State to specifically show that Canbaz formed an intentional, premeditated plan to kill Peralta. The trial court erred in concluding that § 27-404(2) applied to the disputed testimony. However, this error resulted in no prejudice to Canbaz. The limiting instruction at trial simply admonished the jury to consider the disputed testimony for the very purpose for which it was admitted. Canbaz further argues that the trial court erred in admitting the disputed statements under § 27-403 because the statements were more prejudicial than probative. As we have already noted, under § 27-403, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury. Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision based on an improper basis. State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226, 242, 548 N.W.2d 739, 751 (1996). The testimony of Canbaz' neighbors and coworkers was not unfairly prejudicial, confusing, or misleading to the jury. This testimony provided a proper basis for determining whether Canbaz killed Peralta intentionally and with premeditation. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the testimony of Gene Simon, Sandy Simon, Handley, and Clemons. Canbaz' assertion to the contrary is without merit.