Opinion ID: 2111897
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: coleman's trial

Text: As previously mentioned, the trial court denied Coleman's pretrial motion to suppress the crack cocaine as evidence in Coleman's jury trial. Through a motion in limine, Coleman's lawyer asked for exclusion of certain statements which Coleman made during interrogation by Lang, namely: I would move in limine prior to any evidence put on by the officers to ask the court to exclude a statement that Officer Lang says that Mr. Coleman made to him with regards to the fact that he had gotten out of the penitentiary in September, September 19th of 1989, and then started using crack shortly afterwards. While it may be relevant, I think that its possible prejudicial value under Nebraska Revised Statutes Rule 403 would be too much for a jury to put out of their mind. ... [M]y concern is the statement the officer makes saying, I got out of the penitentiary. Thus, Coleman's motion in limine was based on Neb.Evid.R. 403, Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1989), which provides: Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence. The trial court rejected Coleman's motion in limine and additionally commented that denial of the motion was with the understanding [Coleman] is going to testify. Should that status change, then I might change my mind on the motion in limine also. During the State's case in chief, and after Coleman's renewed objection that the seized crack cocaine, as previously challenged by the suppression motion, was constitutionally inadmissible, Lang testified that during interrogation of Coleman regarding the cocaine discovered in the Buick, Coleman said, [I]t's mine.... I'm an user, so you can go tell those other guys [Branch and Jack Coleman] I fessed up. Concerning the cocaine discovered during the traffic stop, Lang's testimony also included Coleman's statements expressed during interrogation at police headquarters and previously recounted at the suppression hearing. The prosecutor then asked Lang whether Coleman had said anything else during the interrogation. To the preceding inquiry, Coleman's lawyer responded: I object to any testimony regarding where Mr. Coleman was earlier in the fall prior to his arrest in November of 1989. After Coleman's objection was overruled, Lang testified: [Coleman] had stated he had just gotten out of the penitentiary on the 19th of September [1989], and that he had heard that crack cocaine was a new thing and that it was a new thing to do.