Opinion ID: 4534543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: [1] In an appeal of a criminal case from the county court, the district court acts as an intermediate court of appeals, and its review is limited to an examination of the record for error or abuse of discretion. 1 [2] When deciding appeals from criminal convictions in county court, we apply the same standards of review that we apply to decide appeals from criminal convictions in district court. 2 [3] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protection is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination. 3 [4] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 4 [5] We review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the sufficiency of a party’s foundation for admitting evidence. 5 1 State v. McCave, 282 Neb. 500, 805 N.W.2d 290 (2011). 2 Id. 3 State v. Hartzell, 304 Neb. 82, 933 N.W.2d 441 (2019). 4 State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734, 915 N.W.2d 795 (2018). 5 Id. - 596 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. MONTOYA Cite as 305 Neb. 581 [6] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, we review for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and review de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection. 6 [7] An appellate court reviews de novo a trial court’s determination of the protections afforded by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 11, of the Nebraska Constitution and reviews the underlying factual determinations for clear error. 7 [8] In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 8 The relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 9