Opinion ID: 1807431
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 21

Heading: Past Threats by Wasmer and Niemann

Text: Boppre further complains about the district court's sustainment of the State's objections to Boppre's questions to Wasmer as to whether Wasmer had ever threatened to kill anybody or ever told another person he was going to kill anybody. The district court sustained the objections on the basis that the questions sought irrelevant information. Boppre argues that the answers to those questions should have been allowed by the Court, because they might have been reflective on the character of the witness, and his past patterns or incidents of violent behavior or threats. He had originally been a suspect in the case, and a jury should have been able to consider evidence of this nature (bias and prejudice). Brief for appellant at 38-39. The district court properly determined that the evidence 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. State v. Hankins, 232 Neb. 608, 441 N.W.2d 854 (1989); Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 1989). Whether Wasmer threatened persons other than Valdez or Condon is not probative of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of this action. Similarly, Boppre complains about the district court's sustainment of the State's relevance objection to Boppre's question to Niemann as to whether he remembered making any statement ... concerning some physical acts [he was] threatening to do against some third parties other than Valdez. Boppre argues that Niemann should have been allowed to answer the question because the partiality of a witness is subject to exploration at trial and is always relevant as discrediting the witness and affecting the weight of his testimony. Brief for appellant at 39. Boppre does not explain how evidence of past threats made by Niemann is probative of Niemann's partiality. Just as discussed above, this evidence is not relevant.