Opinion ID: 2038451
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Testimony of Lawyer

Text: On remand from the Court of Appeals, Beverly called a local lawyer to testify about the significance that the police would attach to Roger and Lisa's living situation. Lisa objected on the ground that the police, and not a lawyer, should be called to testify as to what the police will do in a given situation. The objection was sustained, and Beverly made an offer of proof. Essentially, the lawyer would have testified that when seeking to obtain a search warrant, the police will often submit utility and land title records to the judicial officer as evidence that the person has a legal interest in the property discussed in the records. Therefore, according to the lawyer, because Roger's name was on the warranty deed and Roger paid utilities for the home, the police would have concluded that Roger had a legal interest in the property. [10] On appeal, Beverly contends that the district court erred in sustaining Lisa's objection to the lawyer's testimony. Without passing on the correctness of the district court's ruling, we conclude that Beverly was not prejudiced by the exclusion of this evidence because substantially similar evidence was admitted without objection. See Crete Ed. Assn. v. Saline Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 76-0002, 265 Neb. 8, 654 N.W.2d 166 (2002) (improper exclusion of evidence is ordinarily not prejudicial where substantially similar evidence is admitted without objection). The record illustrates that prior to Lisa's objection and Beverly's offer of proof, the lawyer was allowed to testify, without objection, that (1) in anticipation of getting a search warrant to search a home, the police look to see who has a legal interest in the property; (2) the police examine land records and utility records to determine who has a legal interest in the property; and (3) land records and utility records are often included in the affidavit upon which the application for a search warrant is based. In addition, evidence had already been presented that (1) Roger's name was on the warranty deed to the property and (2) Roger paid the utilities for the home in which he and Lisa lived. Therefore, prior to Lisa's objection, the court had already been presented with evidence from which it could determine that if the police sought to search the house where Roger lived, they would conclude, based on title and utility records, that Roger had a legal interest in the home. Consequently, no prejudice has befallen Beverly because the lawyer, if he had been allowed to testify further, would have simply emphasized and restated what was already before the court.