Opinion ID: 2047351
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Effect of Our Ruling on District Court's Vacation of Hall's Conviction

Text: In the conclusion portion of its brief, the State claims The foundation before the trial court was adequate under Neb. Rev. Stat. [§] 60-6,192 to support the trial court's exercise of sound discretion in allowing the speed reading from the Pro Laser 3 [sic] to be admitted at trial. It follows that the judgment of the district court should be reversed and the matter remanded to that district court with directions to affirm the original judgment of the county court. Brief for appellant at 33. But as we have already explained, the State failed to preserve its argument that the district court erred in ruling that the distance testing conducted by Cline did not constitute sufficient external testing of accuracy under § 60-6,192(1)(d). Thus, even though the district court incorrectly ruled that the State is required to show that results from a radio microwave, mechanical, or electronic speed measurement device are reliable under rule 702, an alternative basis for affirming the district court's judgment remains intact.