Opinion ID: 2111189
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 13

Heading: Use of Deposition Testimony as Substantive Evidence.

Text: Because our resolution of the prosecutorial misconduct issue necessitates retrial, we address Castor's contention that the trial court erred when it refused to admit the prior deposition testimony of certain witnesses as substantive evidence and then sua sponte instructed the jury that the deposition testimony could be used only for impeachment purposes and not as substantive evidence. Specifically, during the cross-examination of Jimmy Brown, Brown's nephew, Castor offered his inconsistent deposition testimony for the truth of the matter asserted, claiming it was proper as a past recollection recorded. The State objected, claiming the statement was proper only for impeachment. The court sustained the objection, noting we'll instruct the jury that the reading of the information to them is simply to be utilized in judging the credibility of the witness at this time and is not to be taken as proof of the matter that's been read to you out of that particular document. Later, during the cross-examination of George Brown, Brown's brother and Jimmy Brown's father, when Castor began questioning him about inconsistent statements in his deposition, the court sua sponte noted: I'm going to interrupt you just a minute. Ladies and gentlemen, through the course of the trial, you're probably going to hear more questioning that is predicated upon prior statements that people have made in depositions. Unless you are otherwise instructed by me, I want you to understand that when the prior statements are revealed from the deposition, that the purpose of that is to either refresh the memory of the witness or to allow you to know that there is an inconsistent statement for the purpose of judging their credibility as to what is said today. What is said in those depositions is not evidence in this case.But only to either refresh the memory of the witness or to allow you to judge the credibility of their testimony today. And that's unless I otherwise instruct you. Neither counsel objected to the court's instruction. Castor bases her assignment of error upon Neb.Rev.Stat. § 27-801(4)(a) (Reissue 1995), which provides that a statement is not hearsay if: The declarant testifies at the trial or hearing and is subject to cross-examination concerning the statement, and the statement is (i) inconsistent with his testimony and was given under oath subject to the penalty of perjury at a trial, hearing, or other proceeding, or in a deposition.... Castor contends that under § 27-801(4)(a), prior inconsistent statements made in depositions by certain witnesses, including Jones, Troy Guider, Jimmy Brown, and George Brown, are admissible as substantive evidence and not just to impeach, and the trial court erred in its instruction and in not allowing the evidence. Castor's argument fails to consider Neb.Rev.Stat. § 29-1917 (Reissue 1995). Section 29-1917 provides that in a felony ... prosecution, the prosecuting attorney or the defendant may request the court to allow the taking of a deposition of any person other than the defendant who may be a witness in the trial of the offense, and further states that [a] deposition taken pursuant to this section may be used at the trial by any party solely for the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness, § 29-1917(4). In State v. Allen, 252 Neb. 187, 560 N.W.2d 829 (1997), we stated that § 29-1917(4) governs the appropriate use of discovery depositions in criminal cases when the deponent is available as a testifying witness. Because the deponents in this case were available for trial and did in fact testify, § 29-1917(4) was applicable and the trial court did not err in limiting the use of the deposition testimony to the purpose of contradicting or impeaching the testimony of the deponent as a witness. Evidence Supporting Forgery and Unauthorized Use of Financial Device. Castor next contends that the trial court erred when it failed to dismiss the forgery counts and unauthorized use of a financial transaction device count because there was insufficient evidence as a matter of law to establish that Castor signed Brown's name without authorization. Castor moved to dismiss the counts of forgery at the close of the State's evidence and again at the close of all the evidence when she also specifically mentioned the financial transaction device count. The motions were overruled by the court. Castor was charged with four counts of second degree forgery, involving: check No. 2639, in the amount of $194.08, written to Phillips 66 on November 29, 1996; check No. 2638, in the amount of $2,000, written to Edward Brown on November 27, 1996; check No. 2635, in the amount of $2,000, written to Wilma Castor on November 27, 1996; and check No. 2634, in the amount of $140, written to Self Store It Inc. on November 27, 1996. She was also charged with one count of unauthorized use of a financial device, relating to the check card purchases on November 29, 1996. Castor admits she signed Brown's name on the checks and bank card documents but contends she was authorized by Brown to do so. Nebraska case law clearly establishes that to sustain a conviction for forgery, it is not sufficient for the State to show that the signature is not that of the party whose name is used, but it must also affirmatively be shown that the signing was made without his authority. State v. Addison, 191 Neb. 792, 794, 217 N.W.2d 468, 469 (1974). See, Crawford v. State, 164 Neb. 231, 82 N.W.2d 1 (1957); Berg v. State, 157 Neb. 863, 61 N.W.2d 837 (1954). The State does not contest that lack of authority is an element that it must prove, but contends that it cannot do so by direct evidence because Brown is dead, and therefore, it must rely upon circumstantial evidence. It contends further that there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to support a finding that Castor was unauthorized to make any financial transactions on Brown's accounts, including the fact that Brown was unaware of the Phillips 66 account when charges were made, that Castor had openly told her coworkers that she was sponging off Brown, that she owed Kearney Keno money for insufficient checks, that she told one coworker that she hated Brown, and that she was upset that he had cut her off despite the fact that he had considerable funds. Under the applicable standard of review, our only inquiry is whether, construing the admissible evidence most favorably to the State, there was sufficient circumstantial evidence to establish that Castor was not authorized to sign the checks or to make the Visa check card purchases. We conclude that the circumstantial evidence supporting the State's theory that Castor killed Brown in order to gain access to his funds from wich she had been cut off is sufficient, if believed by the jury, to establish that Brown did not authorize her use of his check card or her writing of the checks in question. Thus, Castor is not entitled to dismissal of these charges. However, because the proof of these was based upon the same circumstantial evidence utilized by the State in proving the murder and weapons charges, Castor's defense was prejudiced by the State's failure to disclose the information obtained from Peterson and Berlin. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in denying Castor's motion for new trial on the forgery and unauthorized use of a financial device counts.