Opinion ID: 2029434
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: relevancy objections

Text: During trial, Hergert asked for and was granted a continuing relevancy objection to evidence of his conduct prior to taking office, which objections this court took under advisement. In Nebraska, this issue would not arise if Hergert's conduct had occurred while he was an incumbent seeking reelection because our impeachment statutes specifically provide that a state officer may be impeached notwithstanding the offense for which said officer is tried occurred during a term of office immediately preceding. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 24-109 (Reissue 1995). However, even in states where an officer may not be impeached for acts committed in a previous term, a court may nonetheless consider those acts in so far as they are connected with or bear upon [the officer's] general course of conduct during the second term, for the limited purpose of inquiring into the motive and intent of the respondent as to the acts and omissions charged to [the officer] during the second term. State, ex rel. Attorney General v. Hasty. 184 Ala. 121, 126, 63 So. 559, 561 (1913). We agree with this reasoning and conclude that such reasoning is equally applicable to an officer's preincumbency conduct. Thus, we determine that in an impeachment proceeding, an officer's preincumbency conduct is relevant to the extent it bears upon the officer's pattern of conduct and shows the officer's motives and intent as they relate to the officer's conduct while in office. Thus, this objection is overruled and the evidence will be considered for this limited purpose.