Opinion ID: 4537561
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: 1. Motion to Suppress Ferrin’s first assignment of error challenges the overruling of his motion to suppress, but the bill of exceptions in this case does not contain the suppression hearing. 1 State v. Becker, 304 Neb. 693, 936 N.W.2d 505 (2019). 2 Id. 3 Id. 4 State v. Brye, 304 Neb. 498, 935 N.W.2d 438 (2019). - 770 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 [3,4] A bill of exceptions is the only vehicle for bringing evidence before an appellate court, and evidence which is not made a part of the bill of exceptions may not be considered. 5 As a general proposition, it is incumbent upon the appellant to present a record supporting the errors assigned; absent such a record, an appellate court will affirm the lower court’s decision regarding those errors. 6 Because our record does not include the suppression hearing, we do not consider Ferrin’s assignment of error regarding the ruling on his motion to suppress. 2. Motion in Limine [5] Ferrin’s second assignment of error challenges the overruling of his motion in limine, which sought to preclude admission of M.H.’s video-recorded statements to police. We have repeatedly held that a motion in limine is a procedural step to prevent prejudicial evidence from reaching the jury. 7 It is not the office of a motion in limine to obtain a final ruling upon the ultimate admissibility of the evidence. 8 Therefore, when a court overrules a motion in limine to exclude evidence, the movant must object when the particular evidence is offered at trial in order to predicate error before an appellate court. 9 Ferrin’s brief notes that he objected at trial when the video recording of M.H.’s statements was offered, but he has not assigned error to the ruling during trial. To be considered by an appellate court, an alleged error must be both specifically 5 Bohling v. Bohling, 304 Neb. 968, 937 N.W.2d 855 (2020). 6 D.I. v. Gibson, 295 Neb. 903, 890 N.W.2d 506 (2017). 7 Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156, 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019); Golnick v. Callender, 290 Neb. 395, 860 N.W.2d 180 (2015); State v. Schreiner, 276 Neb. 393, 754 N.W.2d 742 (2008). 8 Pantano, supra note 7. 9 Id. - 771 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting the error. 10 [6] An appellant who has assigned only that the trial court erred in denying a motion in limine has not triggered appellate review of the evidentiary ruling at trial. 11 Because Ferrin’s second assignment of error challenges only the ruling on the motion in limine, it presents nothing for appellate review. 3. Motions for Directed Verdict/ Sufficiency of Evidence Ferrin’s third assignment of error challenges the overruling of his motions for directed verdict made at the close of the State’s case and renewed at the conclusion of all the evidence. Both motions asserted the evidence was insufficient to prove the material elements of the charged offense. [7] A defendant who moves for dismissal or a directed verdict at the close of the evidence in the State’s case in chief in a criminal prosecution and who, when the court overrules the dismissal or directed verdict motion, proceeds with trial and introduces evidence, waives the appellate right to challenge correctness in the trial court’s overruling the motion for dismissal or a directed verdict but may still challenge the sufficiency of the evidence. 12 We therefore consider Ferrin’s third assignment of error as one challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the offense of obstructing a peace officer. [8] When reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction, the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond 10 State v. Dady, 304 Neb. 649, 936 N.W.2d 486 (2019). 11 See Pantano, supra note 7. 12 State v. Briggs, 303 Neb. 352, 929 N.W.2d 65 (2019). - 772 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 a reasonable doubt. 13 An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 14 (a) Obstructing Peace Officer [9-12] We begin by identifying the material elements the State must prove to show a violation of § 28-906(1). To determine the elements of a crime, we look to the text of the statute. 15 And when analyzing the text of a criminal statute, we follow settled principles of statutory construction. Penal statutes are considered in the context of the object sought to be accomplished, the evils and mischiefs sought to be remedied, and the purpose sought to be served. 16 Effect must be given, if possible, to all parts of a penal statute; no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided. 17 And in the absence of anything indicating otherwise, statutory language is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning. 18 [13] Under the plain language of the statute, to show a violation of § 28-906(1), the State must prove that (1) the defendant intentionally obstructed, impaired, or hindered either a peace officer, a judge, or a police animal assisting a peace officer; (2) at the time the defendant did so, the peace officer or judge was acting under color of his or her official authority to enforce the penal law or preserve the peace; and (3) the defendant did so by using or threatening to use either violence, force, physical interference, or obstacle. On appeal, Ferrin does not argue there was insufficient evidence to establish the first two of these elements. Rather, 13 State v. Olbricht, 294 Neb. 974, 885 N.W.2d 699 (2016). 14 Id. 15 State v. Mann, 302 Neb. 804, 925 N.W.2d 324 (2019). 16 Id. 17 Id. 18 State v. Stanko, 304 Neb. 675, 936 N.W.2d 353 (2019). - 773 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 his insufficiency argument is focused on the third element, which addresses the proscribed conduct. We limit our analysis accordingly. (i) Proscribed Conduct [14] Section 28-906(1) does not proscribe all conduct that intentionally obstructs, impairs, or hinders officers who are acting under color of their authority to either enforce the penal law or preserve the peace. Instead, it proscribes only conduct that involves using or threatening to use “violence, force, physical interference, or obstacle.” We have rejected the suggestion that these statutory terms are unconstitutionally vague, finding instead that they are commonly used words and are understandable by those of ordinary intelligence. 19 [15] We have consistently recognized that evidence showing a defendant resisted handcuffing, struggled with an officer, and continued to resist restraint is alone sufficient to sustain a conviction for obstructing a peace officer. 20 But here, the State generally concedes that Ferrin’s conduct during the traffic stop did not involve using or threatening to use either violence or force. We agree, and we confine our analysis to whether the record contains sufficient evidence that Ferrin used or threatened to use either “physical interference” or “obstacle” within the meaning of § 28-906(1). Nebraska’s appellate courts have considered these terms in several cases. This court first considered the meaning of the phrase “physical interference, or obstacle” as used in § 28-906(1) in the 1987 case In re Interest of Richter. 21 In that case, two uniformed officers responded to a domestic disturbance call requesting police assistance in removing a disruptive youth from a home. When officers arrived, the youth was 19 State v. Lynch, 223 Neb. 849, 394 N.W.2d 651 (1986). 20 State v. Campbell, 260 Neb. 1021, 620 N.W.2d 750 (2001); Lynch, supra note 19. 21 In re Interest of Richter, 226 Neb. 874, 415 N.W.2d 476 (1987). - 774 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 arguing, cursing, and yelling, and officers told him he would be taken to a youth shelter for the evening. While officers were escorting the youth for transport, he ran away. They pursued him on foot and eventually located him an hour later, at which point he tried to run from the officers a second time. Based on these events, the State alleged the youth was within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court because he committed an act which would constitute a violation of § 28-906(1). 22 In response, the youth argued that to prove a violation of § 28-906(1), the State had to show he used or threatened to use “some physical means to thwart the officers” 23 that involved more than simply running away from police. We disagreed. [16] We gave § 28-906(1) its plain and ordinary meaning, and reasoned that even if the word “physical” modified both “interference” and “obstacle,” the act of running away from police interposed a physical obstacle that obstructed, impaired, or hindered the officers’ efforts to preserve the peace. 24 Ten years later, we decided State v. Yeutter. 25 In that case, city police discovered Edwin Yeutter’s dog running at large in violation of a city ordinance, and an officer went to Yeutter’s home to issue a citation. Yeutter refused to provide his identifying information, and the officer could not complete the citation. When Yeutter was told that if he did not cooperate, he would be arrested for obstructing an officer, he held out his arms and said, “‘[G]o ahead and take me.’” 26 The ­officer 22 See, generally, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-247(1) (Reissue 2016). 23 In re Interest of Richter, supra note 21, 226 Neb. at 876, 415 N.W.2d at 478. 24 In re Interest of Richter, supra note 21. Accord U.S. v. Sledge, 460 F.3d 963 (8th Cir. 2006) (under Nebraska law, mere act of running away from law enforcement officers constitutes physical interference or obstacle within meaning of § 28-906(1)). 25 State v. Yeutter, 252 Neb. 857, 566 N.W.2d 387 (1997). 26 Id. at 859, 566 N.W.2d at 390. - 775 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 instructed him to put his hands on a nearby car, Yeutter refused, and a physical struggle ensued. During the struggle, Yeutter grabbed the officer’s baton, grabbed the officer’s handcuffs, bit the officer’s finger, and generally resisted being taken into custody and placed in the police cruiser. Yeutter was convicted for assaulting an officer, resisting arrest, and obstructing a peace officer. The Nebraska Court of Appeals, in a memorandum opinion filed on December 18, 1996, in case No. A-96-255, reversed the conviction for obstructing a peace officer and otherwise affirmed. We granted Yeutter’s petition for further review to determine just one question: whether he was entitled to a jury instruction on self-defense. But before we addressed that question, we described Yeutter’s arrest for obstructing a peace officer as “an illegal arrest,” 27 noting that at the time the officer attempted to place him under arrest for obstruction, Yeutter had not “used or threatened to use violence or force or physically interfered with the officer.” 28 We then went on to state that “the mere verbal refusal to provide information to an officer does not constitute an obstacle to the enforcement of the penal laws as contemplated by § 28-906. There must be some sort of physical act in order for a violation of this statute to occur.” 29 These propositions of law, while dicta, have been cited by both the Nebraska Court of Appeals and the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. 30 We therefore conclude it is necessary to revisit our statements in Yeutter to ensure they comport with the statutory language of § 28-906(1). 27 Id. at 861, 566 N.W.2d at 391. 28 Id. 29 Id. at 862, 566 N.W.2d at 391. 30 See, Deezia v. City of Lincoln, 350 F. Supp. 3d 868 (D. Neb. 2018); State v. Ellingson, 13 Neb. App. 931, 703 N.W.2d 273 (2005); State v. Owen, 7 Neb. App. 153, 580 N.W.2d 566 (1998). - 776 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 The plain language of § 28-906(1) makes it a crime not just to use violence, force, physical interference, or obstacle, but also to threaten to do so. Consequently, while Yeutter correctly observed that “the mere verbal refusal to provide information to an officer does not constitute an obstacle to the enforcement of the penal laws as contemplated by § 28-906,” 31 our opinion was imprecise when it went on to state that “some sort of physical act” 32 is always required. Because threats can be expressed verbally as well as through gestures and physical acts, 33 our language in Yeutter was too restrictive, and it failed to give effect to all of the statutory language the Legislature included in § 28-906(1). [17] We now clarify that the proper inquiry under § 28-906(1) is not whether a defendant has engaged in “some sort of physical act,” but, rather, whether a defendant’s conduct, however expressed, used or threatened to use either violence, force, physical interference, or obstacle to intentionally obstruct, impair, or hinder a peace officer or judge who was acting to either enforce the penal law or preserve the peace under color of his or her official authority. (ii) Sufficient Evidence of Proscribed Conduct Ferrin argues the evidence at trial was insufficient to show he used or threatened to use physical interference or obstruction. He describes his conduct as “merely refus[ing] to come back and talk to the officers” 34 when requested to do so, and he equates such conduct with “the mere verbal refusal to provide information to an officer,” which we stated 31 Yeutter, supra note 25, 252 Neb. at 862, 566 N.W.2d at 391. 32 Id. 33 See Owen, supra note 30 (holding no clear error in jury instruction stating “obstacle” under § 28-906(1) could be either verbal or physical). 34 Brief for appellant at 19. - 777 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 in Yeutter was insufficient to constitute an “obstacle” under § 28-906. The State argues Yeutter is inapplicable because Ferrin’s conduct involved more than just a mere verbal refusal to provide information. The State generally describes Ferrin’s conduct as a series of defiant refusals to exit his vehicle that presented an obstacle to the officers’ investigation under § 28-906(1). [18,19] It is well settled that officers making a traffic stop may order the driver and passengers to get out of the vehicle pending completion of the stop. 35 Here, when officers ordered Ferrin to get out of the truck, he repeatedly refused to comply and instead defiantly remained inside the truck. This conduct did not involve using violence or force. However, a reasonable jury could find that evidence that a defendant repeatedly refused to comply with police orders to exit a vehicle during a traffic stop is sufficient to show the use of either “physical interference” or “obstacle” under § 28-906(1). The terms “interference” and “obstacle” have similar meanings. Used in its common and ordinary sense, the word “interference” means “[t]he action or fact of interfering or intermeddling (with a person, etc., or in some action).” 36 Similarly, “obstacle” means “[s]omething that stands in the way or that obstructs progress (literal and figurative); a hindrance, impediment, or obstruction.” 37 Given the commonly understood meaning of these terms, a reasonable fact finder could conclude that Ferrin’s conduct in repeatedly refusing to comply with police orders to exit his truck during a traffic stop 35 See Maryland v. Wilson, 519 U.S. 408, 117 S. Ct. 882, 137 L. Ed. 2d 41 (1997). 36 “Interference,” Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/ view/Entry/97762 (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). 37 “Obstacle,” Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/view/ Entry/129940 (last visited Apr. 30, 2020). - 778 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 amounted to using either “physical interference, or obstacle” under § 28-906(1). And although we are mindful that cases from other jurisdictions apply different statutory language, this holding is in accord with decisions from other state and federal courts which hold that refusal to comply with an officer’s requests to exit the vehicle during a traffic stop can support an arrest or conviction for obstruction. 38 Here, the evidence showed the traffic stop was part of an active police investigation of a reported domestic dispute involving possible domestic violence and sexual assault crimes. As part of that investigation, Ferrin was repeatedly asked to step out of his truck so officers could question him, and he repeatedly refused to comply with those requests, even after being told the nature of the investigation and being advised that he could be charged with a crime if he did not comply. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, this evidence was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Ferrin used “physical interference, or obstacle” to intentionally obstruct, impair, or hinder the officers in their investigation. 38 See, e.g., Skube v. Koester, 120 F. Supp. 3d 825 (C.D. Ill. 2015) (prolonged refusal to comply with police orders to exit vehicle can constitute crime of obstruction); Taylor v. State, 326 Ga. App. 27, 755 S.E.2d 839 (2014) (evidence sufficient to prove obstruction when, among other things, defendant refused police orders to exit truck during investigation and instead locked door); State v. Orr, 157 Idaho 206, 335 P.3d 51 (Idaho App. 2014) (evidence sufficient to support conviction for obstruction where suspect refused police requests to exit vehicle); People v. Synnott, 349 Ill. App. 3d 223, 811 N.E.2d 236, 284 Ill. Dec. 941 (2004) (defendant knowingly obstructed police investigation by repeatedly refusing orders to exit vehicle); Wilson v. Village of Los Lunas, 572 F. Appx. 635 (10th Cir. 2014) (refusing officer’s requests to exit vehicle during traffic stop provided probable cause to arrest for obstructing officer); United States v. Thomas, No. 97-4827, 1998 WL 852951 (4th Cir. Dec. 10, 1998) (unpublished disposition listed in table of “Decisions Without Published Opinions” at 166 F.3d 336 (4th Cir. 1998)) (refusing orders to exit vehicle constituted resisting, delaying, or obstructing officer). - 779 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. FERRIN Cite as 305 Neb. 762 Finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdict, we reject Ferrin’s third assignment of error.