Opinion ID: 1287416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: character evidence and cross-examination of sturzenegger

Text: Sturzenegger assigns several errors with respect to purported character evidence, prior bad acts, and improper crossexamination. First and foremost, Sturzenegger complains about evidence that, generally summarized, established that Sturzenegger had engaged in misconduct before and at the time of his alleged sexual abuse. [22] We note, initially, that our review on this issue is made more difficult by the shotgun approach to argument taken by Sturzenegger's appellate brief. In order that assignments of error concerning the admission or rejection of evidence may be considered, an appellate court requires that appropriate references be made to the specific evidence against which an objection is urged. [34] Sturzenegger's appellate argument provides a broad generalization of a multitude of examples of erroneously admitted evidence, instead of specific arguments directed at specific rulings. But even considered generally, Sturzenegger's appellate argument lacks merit. He claims, in essence, that evidence of his conduct and misconduct was simply a smear campaign intended to discredit him. [35] He frames his argument under rules 404 and 608 and Neb. Evid. R. 609, [36] and we do likewise. We agree that under those rules, ordinarily, evidence of the kind at issue in this case would be inadmissible. But here, the evidence was admissible to show that Sturzenegger's psychological damages existed before he was allegedly abused. [23-25] Rule 404(2) prohibits the admission of other bad acts evidence for the purpose of proving the character of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. The reason for the rule is that such evidence, despite its relevance, creates the risk of a decision by the trier of fact on an improper basis. [37] However, evidence of prior bad acts which is relevant for any purpose other than to show the actor's propensity is admissible under rule 404(2). [38] Evidence that is offered for a proper purpose is often referred to as having special or independent relevance, which means its relevance does not depend on its tendency to show propensity. [39] [26] The record in this case is clear about the specific, independent purposes for which the evidence at issue was offered. [40] Much of the evidence complained of by Sturzenegger was relevant because Sturzenegger's misconduct at Boys Town was punished by Moore, which was relevant because it may have given Sturzenegger a motive to accuse Moore of abusing him. But more importantly, the theory of Sturzenegger's case was that the alleged sexual abuse had caused psychological damage, symptomized by racism, drug abuse, continued antisocial behavior, and diagnosed mental illness. Sturzenegger himself testified to bad acts that he had committed after the alleged abuse, claiming they had been caused by Moore. Evidence of Sturzenegger's conduct before and around the time of the alleged incident was relevant to rebut Sturzenegger's claim. Evidence of a plaintiff's prior bad acts may be admitted, pursuant to rule 404(2), where it rebuts the plaintiff's evidence of damages. [41] The district court in this case did not abuse its discretion in concluding that, generally, the evidence at issue was independently relevant to the issue of Sturzenegger's damages. [27,28] Nor does rule 608 bar admission of the evidence. Given the theory on which the evidence at issue was admitted, rule 404, and not rule 608, provides the framework for determining its admissibility. Whether rule 404(2) or rule 608(2) applies to the admissibility of other-acts evidence depends on the purpose for which the proponent introduced the other-acts evidence. [42] Rule 404(2) applies when extrinsic evidence is offered as relevant to a material issue in the case. [43] Rule 608(2) applies when extrinsic evidence is offered to impeach a witness, to show the character of the witness for untruthfulnessin other words, where the only theory of relevance is impeachment by prior misconduct. [44] So, because rule 608(2) affects only evidence of prior instances of conduct when properly relevant solely for the purpose of attacking or supporting a witness' credibility, it in no way affects the admission of evidence of such prior acts for other purposes under rule 404(2). [45] [29] Thus, the application of rule 608(2) to exclude extrinsic evidence of a witness' conduct is limited to instances where the evidence is introduced to show a witness' general character for truthfulness. [46] Evidence relevant to a material issue is not rendered inadmissible because it happens to include references to specific bad acts of a witness, and such evidence should be admitted where it is introduced to disprove a specific fact material to the case. [47] Rule 608(2) does not bar evidence introduced to contradictand which the jury might find to disprovea witness' testimony as to a material issue of the case. [48] [30] And in this case, as already explained, the evidence at issue was relevant to the issues of Sturzenegger's bias against Moore and Sturzenegger's alleged damages. First, the selfinterest of a witness, as opposed to his general character, is not a collateral issue. Evidence that happens to include prior misconduct may still be admissible when offered to show the witness' possible bias or self-interest in testifying. [49] And Sturzenegger's damages were obviously at issue. Thus, although some of the evidence certainly reflected on Sturzenegger's credibility, the evidence was independently relevant for a proper purpose. [50] For the same reasons, Sturzenegger's argument under rule 609 is equally unavailing. [51] Generally, an appellate court gives wide latitude to the trial judge in determining the admissibility of evidence, because the trial judge is in the best position to assess the impact and effect of evidence based upon what the trial judge perceives from the live proceedings of a trial, while the appellate court can review only a cold record. [52] In this case, given the unique allegations made by Sturzenegger, and with due deference to the district court's exercise of its discretion, we find no abuse of such discretion in the court's admission of evidence relating to Sturzenegger's conduct and misconduct before the alleged abuse. Sturzenegger also argues that he was improperly cross-examined about incidents which were not corroborated by later evidencespecifically, an instance of animal cruelty and evidence of Sturzenegger's conduct in middle school. But the fact that extrinsic evidence was not presented to prove the basis for a cross-examination question does not make the question improperquite the opposite. Although not precisely applicable to the unique issues presented by this case, Neb. Evid. R. 405(1) [53] and rule 608(2) expressly contemplate that specific incidents of a witness' conduct may be inquired into on crossexamination without proof by extrinsic evidence. In fact, under those circumstances, extrinsic evidence may be inadmissible, and the cross-examiner may be stuck with the answer given by the witness. [54] In this case, Boys Town directly asked Sturzenegger about certain misconduct and Sturzenegger was able to either explain or deny it. Boys Town was not required to prove the basis for those questions, and the district court did not abuse its discretion in permitting them to be asked. [31] Finally, Sturzenegger argues that he was improperly cross-examined with respect to inconsistent factual allegations in his superseded pleadings. We disagree. While a superseded pleading is no longer a judicial admission, it is admissible as evidence of the facts alleged therein, and may be introduced and considered the same as any other evidence. [55] The district court did not err in permitting the pleadings to be admitted into evidence and in permitting Sturzenegger to be cross-examined with respect to the inconsistent descriptions of the alleged sexual abuse that they contained. For those reasons, we find no merit to Sturzenegger's assignments of error with respect to character evidence, prior bad acts, and cross-examination.