Opinion ID: 1230162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: jeffrey harrington

Text: In this assignment of error, Duncan argues that the district court erred in overruling his objections to portions of Harrington's testimony. Harrington lived in the same neighborhood as Bennett and Duncan and had known Duncan for approximately 10 years. Harrington testified that he saw Duncan in that neighborhood on December 4, 1999, and that Duncan seemed distant during their brief conversation. The State asked Harrington if Duncan's physical appearance had changed over the time that Harrington had known Duncan. Over Duncan's relevance objection, Harrington testified that Duncan had previously been handsome, articulate, and neat in his appearance. However, Harrington testified that after Duncan had moved into his present neighborhood, Duncan's appearance was distinctly different ... so different I remember thinking that his... life had taken a different turn. The defense objected to this answer on grounds that it was nonresponsive, called for speculation, and lacked foundation. The objection was overruled. Duncan argues that the district court erred in overruling these objections because the testimony was irrelevant. Evidence is relevant when it has 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. Davlin, 263 Neb. 283, 639 N.W.2d 631 (2002). Having reviewed the record, we cannot conceive of any fact or consequence for which evidence of Duncan's changing appearance over the course of almost 10 years may have made more or less probable. However, for the same reasons we articulated above in regard to the court's erroneous receipt of portions of Henthorn's testimony, Duncan's conviction was unattributable to the court's erroneous evidentiary ruling here. See State v. Brouillette, 265 Neb. 214, 655 N.W.2d 876 (2003). Duncan's assignment of error is without merit.