Opinion ID: 1966978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 39

Heading: Multiple Witnesses

Text: Finally, Nesbitt alleges that although the district court, via instruction No. 17, instructed the jury regarding the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony, it omitted an instruction concerning the number of witnesses that testified for each party. To the extent this is alleged as error by the district court, it could have been brought on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred in this postconviction action. Nesbitt also alleges, however, that his counsel was ineffective in failing to bring the relevant instruction to the attention of the court. He alleges the proper instruction to be: The weight to be given to any particular legal evidence is not necessarily determined by the number of witnesses testifying on behalf of each side. You may find that the testimony of a smaller number of witnesses for one side is more credible than the testimony of a greater number of witnesses for the other side. Nesbitt alleges that trial counsel's failure to make certain that this instruction was given resulted in prejudice because it allowed the jury to erroneously presume that the number of witnesses testifying for each side was an automatic determinant factor for their consideration in the weight to be given the evidence. Nesbitt does not allege facts relating to how such an erroneous presumption, even if made, would have had a reasonable probability of affecting the outcome of the proceedings and has therefore failed to properly plead ineffective assistance of counsel in this regard. The district court did not err in denying an evidentiary hearing on this ground. Nesbitt also alleges that the district court erred in its failure to either admonish, limit, or strike the inadmissible prejudicial testimony of certain witnesses after defense counsel properly objected. Nesbitt has alleged only error by the district court, which could have been raised on direct appeal and is now procedurally barred. In a subsequent section of his motion, Nesbitt alleges that trial counsel was ineffective generally regarding the jury instruction issues and that appellate counsel ineffectively raised the corpus delicti issue on direct appeal. These allegations are substantially related to those set forth above or to his acquittal/double jeopardy argument and are without merit for the reasons outlined.