Opinion ID: 1793269
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: testimony of juvenile record

Text: Tucker's third claim regarding the ineffectiveness of his counsel relates to improper elicitation of prejudicial testimony by his defense counsel during trial. The objectionable testimony, as set out in Tucker's motion, is as follows: Q. Now, have you ever been convicted of a felony before? A. No. Q. Have you ever been in trouble with the law before? A. Yes, juvenile. Q. And how old were you at that time? A. Thirteen. Q. What was that all about? A. Me and my brother jumped on somebody. Q. It was a fight? A. Yes. Q. Other than that have you had any trouble with law enforcement or any laws? A. No. In his motion, Tucker alleges that the elicitation of this testimony is prohibited by Neb. Evid. R. 609(4), Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-609(4) (Reissue 1995). Therefore, Tucker asserts that counsel was deficient by eliciting this information about his juvenile record which could not otherwise have been proffered. Tucker further alleges that trial counsel's conduct and trial strategies denied Mr. Tucker his right to receive a fair trial when counsel for the defense inflamed the jury with elicited testimony in violation of Neb.Rev.Stat. (Nebraska Evidence Rule), § 27-609(4) preventing the jury considerations to the lesser included jury instructions ofaiding and abeding [sic] when evidence was directed and presented that Willie Tucker fired the shot that killed Lisa M. Lisko, and caused her death. It is unclear exactly what prejudice Tucker is attempting to allege. We are unable, however, to interpret this allegation in any manner that would establish prejudice amounting to a constitutional violation. Assuming Tucker is alleging that he was prejudiced by this testimony because the jury was prevented from considering a lesser-included charge, such an allegation would have no merit. No prejudice could result from the jury's failure to consider a lesser-included charge because there is no lesser-included charge to first degree felony murder in this state. See Hopkins v. Reeves, 524 U.S. 88, 118 S.Ct. 1895, 141 L.Ed.2d 76 (1998), rehearing denied ___ U.S. ___, 119 S.Ct. 5, 141 L.Ed.2d 766. See, also, State v. Moore, 256 Neb. 553, 591 N.W.2d 86 (1999). Tucker has not alleged sufficient factual allegations of prejudice which demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for the elicited testimony, the result of the proceeding would have been different. See State v. Hunt, 254 Neb. 865, 580 N.W.2d 110 (1998). He has, therefore, failed to allege sufficient facts which constitute an infringement of his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel on this issue. Accordingly, the district court was not clearly erroneous in denying Tucker postconviction relief in this matter without an evidentiary hearing.