Opinion ID: 2209739
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: Grooman's Testimony

Text: Harrold's arguments relating to the testimony of Grooman are to some extent addressed by our resolution of the issues relating to the CableVision rules. To the extent that Harrold argues that Grooman's testimony would have been relevant to Harrold's intent, any error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, as noted above. We therefore consider the possible relevance of Grooman's testimony to the issue of community standards. At trial, Harrold made an offer of proof on the issues regarding which he wished to examine Grooman. Much of this offer of proof was an attempt to establish foundation for the admission of the CableVision rules, and we have already disposed of this issue. Beyond that, Harrold's offer of proof included questions to Grooman regarding (1) Grooman's and CableVision's opinions regarding the obscenity of the videotape, (2) whether Harrold's videotape was actually broadcast on television, and (3) whether Grooman or CableVision was prosecuted for broadcasting the videotape. After the offer of proof was made, the trial court sustained the State's objection to the testimony. Initially, we note that when Grooman was asked if he had reached an opinion regarding the obscenity of the videotape, he said that he had not. Since Grooman had no opinion, it could not have been an abuse of discretion for the trial court to exclude it. Harrold asserts, however, that Grooman's offer of proof establishes that CableVision had a policy against broadcasting obscene materials, that the videotape was reviewed by CableVision, and that CableVision showed the videotape. Therefore, argues Harrold, CableVision did not believe the videotape to be obscene, and this, claims Harrold, is evidence relevant to the community standards. The Court of Appeals evidently agreed, finding that what CableVision decides to broadcast is both a measurement and source of community standards. State v. Harrold, 7 Neb.App. 842, 856, 585 N.W.2d 532, 543 (1998). This court held in Main Street Movies v. Wellman, 251 Neb. 367, 371, 557 N.W.2d 641, 645 (1997), that the testimony of the Sarpy County Attorney was not admissible evidence of contemporary community standards, because his opinion constitutes nothing more than an expression of his individual sense of the contemporary community standard. We stated that the county attorney's knowledge, skill, experience, training, and education as a prosecutor do not qualify him as an expert in determining public opinion. Id. Consequently, we held that it was error for the trial court to rely on the county attorney's opinion of contemporary community standards in determining whether work was obscene. Id. In the present case, the foundation for the proffered evidence is even more scant. There is absolutely no evidence that the opinions of the CableVision advisory board would qualify as properly informed guidance regarding community standards. Furthermore, Harrold's offer of proof does not even contain such opinions, but merely offers the inference that since the show was broadcast, the unidentified members of the advisory board must have found the videotape to not be obscene. The Court of Appeals stated that one permissible inference for the jury was that CableVision, like Harrold, considered the videotape at issue to be indecent and suitable for broadcast, but not obscene. State v. Harrold, 7 Neb.App. at 858, 585 N.W.2d at 544. Even assuming this inference to be permissible, it would only be relevant if CableVision's opinion regarding the videotape was itself admissible. It is not. Based upon the foundation presented in Harrold's offer of proof, we find that the proffered evidence lacked both relevance and foundation and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in rejecting it. Similarly, we see no relevance in whether or not Grooman or CableVision was prosecuted for the broadcast of the videotape. The prosecutor's exercise of discretion regarding prosecution provides no guidance to the trier of fact regarding contemporary community standards. Compare Main Street Movies v. Wellman, supra . The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding this testimony.