Opinion ID: 1667075
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Failure to Allow Hearsay Statement

Text: Alford next argues that the trial court erred in sustaining a hearsay objection to proposed testimony by Schoolfield as to what another inmate had told him about the fight. During cross-examination, Schoolfield stated that only one of the other inmates in the unit agreed to tell him what he had observed. Again, Schoolfield testified that the inmate was no longer in the Sarpy County jail. When defense counsel asked Schoolfield what the inmate had said about who started the fight, the court sustained the State's hearsay objection. Defense counsel made an offer of proof that Schoolfield would have testified that Alford accused Lukowski of cheating in a poker game the night before and that Lukowski charged Alford and began hitting Alford first. The proposed statement was clearly hearsay because it was offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, i.e., that Lukowski started the fight. [30] The trial court accordingly sustained the State's hearsay objection. When the trial court explained that the statement was hearsay, Alford's counsel did not argue to the trial court that it nevertheless fell under one of the recognized exceptions to the hearsay rule. On appeal, Alford now argues that the statement falls under the residual hearsay exception, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-804(2)(e) (Reissue 2008). [15] Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by the rules of evidence or by other rules adopted by the statutes of the State of Nebraska or by the discovery rules of this court. [31] Therefore, the proponent of the hearsay evidence has the burden of identifying the appropriate exception and demonstrating that the testimony falls within it. [32] And when the opposing party objects to evidence as hearsay and the trial court sustains the objection, the proponent is required to point out the possible hearsay exceptions in order to preserve the point for appeal. [33] Because defense counsel in this case failed to raise the issue of an exception to the hearsay exclusion, the facts relevant to determining whether a hearsay exception applied were never subjected to the factfinding and discretionary functions of the trial judge. We will not address these arguments for the first time on appeal. [34]