Opinion ID: 2168808
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: testimony of whittington

Text: Whittington, an acquaintance of Canbaz, testified that a few days before the shooting, Canbaz told her he was moving back to Turkey but I'd see him on the news before he left. Canbaz asserts that Whittington's testimony lacked relevance and, further, assuming it was relevant, that her testimony was more prejudicial than probative under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 1995). Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. State v. Myers, 258 Neb. 272, 603 N.W.2d 390 (1999); State v. Sanchez, 257 Neb. 291, 597 N.W.2d 361 (1999). Whittington's testimony about Canbaz' statement shortly before the murder was relevant in that it was evidence of Canbaz' intentions. Canbaz' assertion that Whittington's testimony is irrelevant is without merit. Canbaz further asserts, however, that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Whittington's testimony because, if relevant, it was more prejudicial than probative. Under § 27-403, 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. For the purposes of this rule ... [u]nfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision based on an improper basis. (Citations omitted.) State v. Newman, 250 Neb. 226, 241-42, 548 N.W.2d 739, 751 (1996). After carefully reviewing the record, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Whittington's testimony was more probative than prejudicial. This assignment of error is without merit.