Opinion ID: 1829144
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Evidence Regarding Szeliga

Text: McLemore claims the trial court erred in not allowing him to present evidence regarding Szeliga's history of domestic violence and in not allowing him to present evidence regarding an ongoing sexual relationship between Szeliga and Torres. McLemore claims that he should have been allowed to present testimony from Berres, Szeliga's former girl friend, regarding a domestic abuse incident between Berres and Szeliga which occurred in 1995. The trial court determined that Berres' testimony was not relevant and was inadmissable under § 27-404(2). Section 27-404(2) provides that evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. In making its ruling, the court determined that because there was no evidence of a violent relationship between Szeliga and Torres, there was an insufficient nexus between the present case and Szeliga's alleged abusive conduct toward other women. Thus, the court determined that Berres' testimony regarding the violent relationship between herself and Szeliga was not relevant. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Berres' testimony was not relevant. Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. Neb. Evid.R. 401, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 1995). The exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in determinations of relevancy, and a trial court's decision regarding it will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. State v. Kinser, 259 Neb. 251, 609 N.W.2d 322 (2000). The incident between Berres and Szeliga occurred in 1995, 2 years prior to Torres' murder. Furthermore, no evidence was presented at trial of a violent relationship between Torres and Szeliga which could arguably make Berres' testimony regarding the violent relationship between her and Szeliga relevant to determining the issues in the present case. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Berres' testimony was not admissible. McLemore further contends the trial court erred in not allowing him to cross-examine Szeliga about a sexual encounter with Torres that allegedly occurred the week of the murder. Szeliga was called as a rebuttal witness for the State. Rebuttal evidence is confined to that evidence which explains, disproves, or counteracts evidence introduced by the adverse party. State v. Fahlk, 246 Neb. 834, 524 N.W.2d 39 (1994). The State called Szeliga for the limited purpose of rebutting testimony from a defense witness that Torres spoke only with Szeliga when she stopped by Szeliga and Cullinane's residence on the evening of September 1, 1997. Szeliga testified that both he and Cullinane spoke with Torres when Torres stopped by their residence. Szeliga testified on direct examination as to this issue only, and the trial court limited cross-examination to the issues raised on direct examination. Pursuant to Neb.Evid.R. 611(2), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-611(2) (Reissue 1995), courts limit cross-examination of witnesses to the subject matter of the direct examination and matters affecting the credibility of the witness. State v. Bjorklund, supra . McLemore claims that the questions he intended to ask Szeliga regarding the sexual encounter with Torres the week of the murder were for the purpose of impeaching Szeliga's credibility. However, the trial court recognized that McLemore could have introduced testimony regarding the sexual encounter by calling Szeliga during his case in chief, but chose not to do so. The trial court recognized that McLemore's purpose in this line of questioning was not simply for the purpose of impeaching Szeliga's credibility, but was for the purpose of introducing evidence of the alleged sexual encounter between Torres and Szeliga the week of the murder. It is within the discretion of the trial court to control and limit cross-examination as necessary to prevent undue prejudice and thus produce a fair trial. State v. Bjorklund, 258 Neb. 432, 604 N.W.2d 169 (2000). The trial court correctly determined that the testimony McLemore sought to introduce on cross-examination exceeded the scope of direct examination and was not offered for the purpose of impeaching Szeliga's credibility. Under the circumstances of this case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in limiting cross-examination of Szeliga to matters raised on direct examination.