Opinion ID: 1230162
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: steven henthorn

Text: Next, Duncan argues that he was prejudiced by the district court's erroneous evidentiary rulings and trial counsel's ineffective assistance with regard to Henthorn's testimony of Crimestoppers telephone calls. Henthorn was the lead investigator assigned to the case and testified generally as to the investigation of Bennett's murder. The specific portions of Henthorn's testimony on direct examination and redirect examination at issue here are set forth below. Q. Let me ask you, on December 5th or December 6thand I don't want you to tell me anything about what was saidbut on December 5th or 6th of 1999, were there Crime Stoppers reports coming in to the police department about this murder? [Defense]: I'll object on relevance. Calls for a hearsay response. [State]: I'm not asking him what was in them. I just wanted to know if they were coming in. [Defense]: Relevance. THE COURT: You may answer. [A.] No, we were not. .... Q.... On the 7th of December, did Crime Stoppers callsdid you have any Crime Stoppers calls? [Defense]: Objection, relevance. Calls for hearsay response. [State]: Not what was in them. THE COURT: Crime Stoppers calls in connection with what? [State]: Regarding the murder of Lucille Bennett. THE COURT: You may answer. [A.] Yes, we did. Q.... About what time was that? A. I believe it was about 9:30 in the morning. Q. Okay. And at some point in time did you begin investigating Mr. Duncan? A. Yes. Q. When was that? A. About 9:30 in the morning Q. Okay. A. on the 7th of December. Q. Okay. Didwhat did you do afterat some point in time you got some information that Mr. Duncanyou started looking at him? A. Yes. .... Q....And did you getin this particular case, did you get Crime Stoppers reports beforehow many Crime Stoppers reports did you get before the 10th of December? [Defense]: Objection, relevance, foundation. THE COURT: You may answer. [A.] Two. Duncan argues that the district court erred in overruling his relevance and hearsay objections above. Duncan further argues that this testimony was unfairly prejudicial because it allowed the jury to infer that someone called Crimestoppers and identified Duncan as a suspect. However, an objection, based on a specific ground and properly overruled, does not preserve a question for appellate review on any other ground. State v. Timmens, 263 Neb. 622, 641 N.W.2d 383 (2002). A trial court is required to weigh the danger of unfair prejudice against the probative value of the evidence only when requested to do so at trial. State v. Schrein, 244 Neb. 136, 504 N.W.2d 827 (1993). Duncan did not object to any portion of Henthorn's testimony under Neb. Evid. R. 403, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995), and we will not analyze the issue under that rule. Instead, we consider whether the evidence had any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable that it would have been without the evidence, Neb. Evid. R. 401, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 1995), and also whether Henthorn's testimony was inadmissible hearsay. We determine that the district court properly overruled Duncan's hearsay objections. Under § 27-801(3), hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. State v. Pruett, 263 Neb. 99, 638 N.W.2d 809 (2002). A statement is defined in part as an oral or written assertion. § 27-801(1). The two questions objected to by Duncan on hearsay grounds asked whether and when the police received any Crimestoppers calls. These questions did not call for an oral or written assertion made by an out-of-court declarant, and the content of those calls were never explicitly divulged. However, we conclude that the district court erred in overruling Duncan's relevance objections. An erroneous admission of evidence is considered prejudicial to a criminal defendant unless the State demonstrates that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Sheets, 260 Neb. 325, 618 N.W.2d 117 (2000). See, also, State v. Rieger, 260 Neb. 519, 618 N.W.2d 619 (2000). Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the jury actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but, rather, whether the actual guilty verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely unattributable to the error. State v. Brouillette, 265 Neb. 214, 655 N.W.2d 876 (2003). Despite the court's erroneous admission of this evidence, we conclude, on these facts, that Duncan's conviction was surely unattributable to this error. The testimony of Liwaru, corroborated by Chanel and Nocita, established that Duncan was privy to details of Bennett's murder before Bennett's body was discovered and reported to police. Duncan also told Liwaru during one of the December 5, 1999, telephone calls that he murdered Bennett. This evidence supports Duncan's conviction and renders the court's erroneous admission of Henthorn's testimony harmless. For those questions above where no objection was made, Duncan argues that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Specifically, Duncan claims that counsel should have objected based on his confrontation rights under U.S. Const. amend. VI and XIV and Neb. Const. art. I, § 11, and on rules 401, 403, 801, and Neb. Evid. R. 802, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-802 (Reissue 1995). Duncan also claims his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to move for a mistrial. When the issue of ineffective assistance of counsel has not been raised or ruled on at the trial court level and the matter necessitates an evidentiary hearing, an appellate court will not address the matter on direct appeal. State v. McLemore, 261 Neb. 452, 623 N.W.2d 315 (2001). We determine that Duncan's argument of ineffective assistance of counsel regarding this issue requires an evidentiary hearing. Thus, we decline the opportunity to consider it here.