Opinion ID: 4560972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: 1. Deposition Sanctions (a) Standard of Review [1] Trial courts have broad discretion with respect to sanctions involving discovery procedures, and their rulings thereon will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 6 6 State v. Sierra, 305 Neb. 249, 939 N.W.2d 808 (2020). - 445 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 (b) Discussion Devers argues that the district court abused its discretion when it terminated Milton’s deposition and denied Devers’ motion in limine to exclude her as a witness. He contends that there are no rules governing depositions that allow a party to bring the trial judge to terminate the deposition. He further contends that because Milton refused to testify at the deposition, the court abused its discretion in denying the motion in limine. [2,3] Devers’ first argument—concerning the lack of discovery rules allowing a judge to terminate a deposition—was not raised to the district court. Appellate courts do not generally consider arguments and theories raised for the first time on appeal. 7 And, as noted by the State, when the district court terminated the deposition, Devers failed to object. Failure to make a timely objection waives the right to assert prejudicial error on appeal. 8 Because Devers failed to object to the termination of the deposition and did not raise the termination argument during his motion in limine hearing, we will not address this argument. Regarding Devers’ second argument, the district court entered an order in compliance with its statutory powers. Pursuant to a criminal discovery statute, Devers filed a motion to take Milton’s deposition. 9 During the deposition, Milton refused to answer questions over concerns for her safety and the district court terminated the deposition. Under another criminal discovery statute, when a party fails to comply with criminal discovery procedures, including the statute authorizing depositions, “the court may” 10 either “[p]rohibit the party from calling a witness not disclosed or introducing in evidence the 7 State v. Uhing, 301 Neb. 768, 919 N.W.2d 909 (2018). 8 State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734, 915 N.W.2d 795 (2018). 9 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1917 (Reissue 2016). 10 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1919 (Reissue 2016). - 446 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 material not disclosed” 11 or “[e]nter such other order as it deems just under the circumstances.” 12 In the district court’s order, it specifically stated that “Devers [was] free to file an additional motion to take [Milton’s] deposition . . . .” Because the court’s order was entered in November 2018 and trial occurred in March 2019, significant time remained in which to depose Milton again. Under these circumstances, we agree with the district court that authorizing a second deposition was a sufficient remedy. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Devers’ motion in limine. 2. Relevancy and Unfair Prejudice (a) Standard of Review [4-6] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 13 A trial court’s determination of the relevancy and admissibility of evidence must be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 14 Balancing the probative value of evidence against the danger of unfair prejudice is within the discretion of the trial court. 15 (b) Discussion Because both of Devers’ assignments asserting error in the admission of evidence are based on relevancy and unfair prejudice, we recall general applicable principles. [7,8] Evidence that is irrelevant is inadmissible. 16 “Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the 11 § 29-1919(3). 12 § 29-1919(4). 13 State v. Lierman, 305 Neb. 289, 940 N.W.2d 529 (2020). 14 State v. Carpenter, 293 Neb. 860, 880 N.W.2d 630 (2016). 15 State v. Thomas, 303 Neb. 964, 932 N.W.2d 713 (2019). 16 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-402 (Reissue 2016); State v. Brown, 302 Neb. 53, 921 N.W.2d 804 (2019). - 447 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 existence of any fact that is of consequence to the deter­ mination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” 17 Relevancy requires only that the probative value be something more than nothing. 18 [9-11] Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. 19 Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision based on an improper basis. 20 Unfair prejudice speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the fact finder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged, commonly on an emotional basis. 21 (i) Controlled Substances Devers makes two arguments concerning the admission of controlled substances seized from the search of his home. Neither is persuasive. First, he argues that evidence of methamphetamine, synthetic marijuana, and packaging materials had little to no probative value. Second, he argues that the minimal probative value of the drug evidence was substantially outweighed by the danger that the jury believed him to be a “trafficker of dangerous narcotics.” 22 And, he asserts, the court’s attempt to cure the problem by means of a contemporaneous limiting instruction did not encompass all of the target evidence, and consequently, he “suffered the full prejudicial effects of this wrongly admitted evidence.” 23 We disagree. 17 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 2016). 18 State v. Brown, supra note 16. 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Brief for appellant at 19. 23 Id. at 20. - 448 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 [12,13] Contrary to Devers’ first argument, the admission of the testimony regarding controlled substances was relevant to corroborate the testimony of Milton, Stockdale, and Sullivan. We have recognized that evidence may be relevant because it corroborates other testimony. 24 This follows from a broader principle: The State is allowed to present a coherent picture of the facts of the crimes charged, and it may generally choose its evidence in so doing. 25 Hanson testified that during the search of Devers’ home, law enforcement seized synthetic marijuana, methamphetamine, and packaging materials. Milton testified that on the night of the incident, she purchased marijuana from Devers. Stockdale testified that during his conversations with Devers, Devers stated that his house was searched and that drugs were found. And Devers told Sullivan that law enforcement seized “K-2” from Devers’ home. The evidence was relevant to corroborate the testimony of an eyewitness and jailhouse informants. In other words, the evidence had substantial probative value to corroborate both Milton’s testimony that she was with Devers the night of the incident and Devers’ statements to Stockdale and Sullivan about the incident. [14,15] Nor was the evidence’s probative value substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice. Most, if not all, evidence offered by a party is calculated to be prejudicial to the opposing party. 26 But the court’s limiting instruction restricted the use of the evidence only to corroborate the testimony of Milton, Stockdale, and Sullivan. Although the court’s initial limiting instruction, given contemporaneously with Hanson’s testimony, referred only to evidence of “marijuana,” the court’s final jury instructions broadly encompassed the “evidence of seized controlled substances located at [Devers’ home].” In construing an individual jury instruction, the instruction should not be judged in artificial isolation but must be viewed 24 See State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179, 817 N.W.2d 277 (2012). 25 Id. 26 State v. Thomas, supra note 15. - 449 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 in the context of the overall charge to the jury considered as a whole. 27 Here, the situation resembled that in another case where we said, “The district court’s limiting instruction restricted the jury’s use of the evidence and minimized the tendency to suggest a decision on an improper basis.” 28 Based on the limiting instructions, taken as whole, we cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence of controlled substances. (ii) Firearm Devers makes two arguments concerning the admission of the firearm seized at Benson Towers. First, he argues that the firearm evidence had minimal probative value and was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, because “the State introduced little, if any, evidence establishing a direct connection between Devers and the handgun . . . at the Benson Towers.” 29 Second, he argues that the prosecutor elicited testimony from Hanson about “‘multiple packages of marijuana’” found in the safe that served only to confuse the issues and unfairly prejudice Devers. 30 To support the first argument, Devers relies upon State v. Sellers. 31 There, the defendant argued that the district court should have admitted the evidence of a handgun seized during the search of the victim. After unsuccessful attempts to serve the victim with a subpoena, the victim was arrested. At the home where the arrest occurred, law enforcement conducted a search and seized several items, including firearms. The district court granted the State’s motion in limine to exclude admission of firearm evidence. On appeal, we reasoned that the probative value of the firearms seized at the arrest was minimal. 27 State v. Ely, 295 Neb. 607, 889 N.W.2d 377 (2017). 28 See State v. Perrigo, 244 Neb. 990, 1001, 510 N.W.2d 304, 311 (1994). 29 Brief for appellant at 28. 30 Id. 31 State v. Sellers, 279 Neb. 220, 777 N.W.2d 779 (2010). - 450 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 There was no proof linking the victim to the handgun, and law enforcement personnel testified that they could not place the handgun as having been in the victim’s possession. We concluded that the minimal probative value was outweighed by the danger of prejudice. Here, however, the State relied upon circumstantial evidence to connect Devers to the firearm seized at Benson Towers. Milton stated that after the incident, Devers drove Goynes to Lemon’s house and that Devers told Goynes that Devers would get rid of something for Goynes. It was known that Devers spent a lot of time with family, including Kenvaughn. The next day, Chae picked up Kenvaughn and Shydale and took them to their mother’s home. Chae saw them wipe down a firearm with a T-shirt. Chae then drove Kenvaughn and Shydale to Benson Towers. Later that evening, Kenvaughn was at Devers’ home when law enforcement executed the search warrant. The following morning, law enforcement received a search warrant for an apartment with a family connection to Kenvaughn and Shydale. Law enforcement seized a handgun wrapped in a T-shirt. Milton described the handgun as black, Chae described the handgun as chrome and black, and Hanson stated that the ammunition found at Devers’ home could be fired by the handgun found at Benson Towers. [16] Devers contends that the circumstantial nature of the firearm evidence had minimal probative value and therefore prejudiced him. Circumstantial evidence is not inherently less probative than direct evidence. 32 Unlike the situation in Sellers, the temporal proximity from the shooting to the seizure of the firearm increased the probative value of the circumstantial evidence. 33 And, here, the evidence of the firearm was relevant to the crimes charged. We cannot say that the circumstantial evidence of the firearm was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Accordingly, the 32 See State v. Thelen, 305 Neb. 334, 940 N.W.2d 259 (2020). 33 See State v. Sellers, supra note 31. - 451 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the firearm. [17] Regarding Devers’ second argument, assuming without deciding that admission of the statement about “multiple packages of marijuana” seized in the safe with the firearm was error, we conclude the error was harmless. Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict surely would have been rendered, but, rather, whether the actual guilty verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely unattributable to the error. 34 In the entirety of the trial, the challenged testimony represented only a single isolated statement. Here, the guilty verdicts were surely unattributable to this sole reference. Any error in admitting that evidence was harmless. 3. Sufficiency of Evidence (a) Standard of Review [18] In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 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 a reasonable doubt. 35 (b) Discussion (i) Intent to Commit Robbery Devers argues that the jury could not have found him guilty of first degree felony murder, because there was insufficient 34 State v. Dady, 304 Neb. 649, 936 N.W.2d 486 (2019). 35 State v. Montoya, 305 Neb. 581, 941 N.W.2d 474 (2020). - 452 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 evidence to support that Devers “‘intended that the crime be committed[,] or [Devers] knew that the other person intended to commit the crime[,] or [Devers] expected the other person to commit the crime.’” 36 He contends that Milton’s testimony was not credible because a security guard did not identify Devers as the driver of the vehicle and that video surveillance footage inside Reign Lounge “did not confirm many of Stockdale’s claims.” 37 This, however, merely invites us to pass on credibility or reweigh the evidence. We decline to do so. The evidence adduced at trial showed Devers knew Goynes intended to commit robbery. Because the testimony showed Devers turned Goynes on to the “lick,” refused to return to Reign Lounge while Goynes was gone, implicitly understood why Goynes left the vehicle, and waited for Goynes to return, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find Devers intended, knew, or expected Goynes to commit the robbery. Viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution, there was sufficient evidence for any rational trier of fact to find Devers guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. (ii) Intent to Use Firearm Devers argues that the jury could not have found him guilty of use of a firearm to commit a felony. He argues that Milton’s “evidence that Devers was present in the vehicle outside Reign Lounge such that he had an opportunity to know that Goynes both intended to rob LeFlore and intended to use a firearm to do so” 38 was insufficient to support his conviction. The record shows sufficient evidence that Devers knew Goynes intended to use a firearm to commit the robbery. 36 Brief for apellant at 38. 37 Id. at 39. 38 Id. - 453 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 Stockdale testified that Devers said, “‘I just didn’t think my little cousin stupid ass would kill him. . . . I told him to shoot if he act up, but damn.’” Milton agreed that when she was in the vehicle with Devers and Goynes, it was readily apparent that Goynes was armed with a firearm, and she testified that he “had it out the whole time.” This evidence alone is sufficient. [19] Based on Nebraska’s aiding and abetting statute, 39 the State argues an alternative theory that the reasoning in State v. McClain, 40 which in turn relies upon State v. Mantich, 41 applies here. In Mantich, we explained that “one who intentionally aids and abets the commission of a crime may be responsible not only for the intended crime, if it is in fact committed, but also for other crimes which are committed as a natural and probable consequence of the intended criminal act.” 42 There, we determined that using a firearm was a natural and probable consequence of kidnapping, robbing, and terrorizing the victim. And as an aider or abettor of the criminal acts, the defendant could properly be convicted of using a firearm to commit a felony “even if the jury believed that [the defendant] was unarmed.” 43 The same reasoning applies here. The record shows that the State prosecuted Devers as an aider and abettor. Devers intended to rob LeFlore, Goynes shot and robbed LeFlore, Devers aided Goynes by driving the vehicle, and LeFlore died of his wounds. Use of the firearm in the commission of the murder was a natural and probable consequence of the intended act of robbery. Considered in the light most favorable to the prosecution, the evidence was sufficient for any rational trier of fact to find Devers guilty. 39 See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-206 (Reissue 2016). 40 State v. McClain, 285 Neb. 537, 827 N.W.2d 814 (2013). 41 State v. Mantich, 249 Neb. 311, 543 N.W.2d 181 (1996). 42 Id. at 327, 543 N.W.2d at 193. 43 Id. at 328, 543 N.W.2d at 193. - 454 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 4. Ineffective Assistance of Counsel (a) Standard of Review [20] In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, an appellate court decides only whether the undisputed facts contained within the record are sufficient to conclusively determine whether counsel did or did not provide effective assistance and whether the defendant was or was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance. 44 (b) Legal Framework [21,22] When a defendant’s trial counsel is different from his or her counsel on direct appeal, the defendant must raise on direct appeal any issue of trial counsel’s ineffective perform­ ance which is known to the defendant or is apparent from the record. 45 Once raised, the appellate court will determine whether the record on appeal is sufficient to review the merits of the ineffective performance claims. 46 [23,24] In order to know whether the record is insufficient to address assertions on direct appeal that trial counsel was ineffective, appellate counsel must assign and argue deficiency with enough particularity (1) for an appellate court to make a determination of whether the claim can be decided upon the trial record and (2) for a district court later reviewing a petition for postconviction relief to be able to recognize whether the claim was brought before the appellate court. 47 When a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel is raised in a direct appeal, the appellant is not required to allege prejudice; however, an appellant must make specific allegations of the conduct that he or she claims constitutes deficient performance by trial counsel. 48 44 State v. Lierman, supra note 13. 45 Id. 46 Id. 47 Id. 48 Id. - 455 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 (c) Discussion (i) Limiting Instruction Devers argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the allegedly deficient limiting instruction that misdescribed the evidence of controlled substances. He contends that at trial, the district court limited the evidence to “marijuana,” but that Hanson’s testimony included evidence of synthetic marijuana, methamphetamine, and packing materials. The claim is sufficiently alleged, and the record is sufficient to review it. Regarding the admission of evidence of controlled substances, the record shows that the district court gave two limiting instructions. While the original instruction restricted the jury to consider only the evidence of “marijuana” to corroborate witness testimony, the final jury instruction encompassed evidence of all controlled substances. As we previously determined, the limiting instructions, taken as a whole, removed any prejudice regarding the additional controlled substances. We conclude that this argument is without merit. (ii) Motion to Dismiss Devers argues that trial counsel erred in failing to present evidence that he asserted his constitutional right to a speedy trial early and often in communications with his counsel. Devers further argues that counsel was ineffective for failing to file an interlocutory appeal from the denial of his motion to dismiss. We agree with the State that this claim is sufficiently alleged and that the record is sufficient to review it. Devers’ first argument addresses only a purported failure to present evidence on his constitutional speedy trial claim. The State argues that counsel was not ineffective for failing to produce evidence to support Devers’ motion, because Devers did not argue to the district court that he asserted his constitutional right early and often in communications with counsel. 49 Even if we assume that the State’s argument 49 See Johnston v. Mahally, 348 F. Supp. 3d 417 (E.D. Pa. 2018). - 456 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 is incorrect, Devers was not prejudiced. The district court analyzed Devers’ constitutional speedy trial claim and found no unreasonable delay or prejudice. We agree and find that Devers’ trial counsel’s actions did not prejudice Devers; thus, his claim lacks merit. Devers’ second argument also fails. As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, “application of the principles articulated in [Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp. 50] and [Abney v. United States 51] to [constitutional] speedy trial claims compels the conclusion that such claims are not appealable before trial.” 52 Because denial of a motion to dismiss based upon a constitutional speedy trial claim is not a final, appealable order, Devers’ argument lacks merit. (iii) Corrections Officer Hall Devers argues trial counsel was ineffective for failing to present testimony from “Corrections Officer Hall,” who would have testified that “upon learning that Stockdale would be moved into [Devers’] cell, Devers became irate due to his belief . . . Stockdale would use the opportunity to fabricate incriminating statements by Devers in an effort to obtain leniency,” 53 and that Corrections Officer Hall informed Devers he would have to lock Devers down because Devers was so upset about Stockdale’s being moved into his cell. The claim is sufficiently alleged, and the record is sufficient to review part of the claim. Devers’ argument that Corrections Officer Hall would testify that Devers believed that Stockdale would fabricate incriminating evidence is without merit. First, Corrections Officer 50 Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 69 S. Ct. 1221, 93 L. Ed. 1528 (1949). 51 Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651, 97 S. Ct. 2034, 52 L. Ed. 2d 651 (1977). 52 United States v. MacDonald, 435 U.S. 850, 861, 98 S. Ct. 1547, 56 L. Ed. 2d 18 (1978). 53 Brief for appellant at 46. - 457 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. DEVERS Cite as 306 Neb. 429 Hall would not be able to testify to Devers’ personal beliefs, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-603 (Reissue 2016). And any statements that Devers made to Corrections Officer Hall would be inadmissible hearsay, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (Reissue 2016). Accordingly, the claim is without merit. The record is insufficient to address the claims concerning observations that Corrections Officer Hall made when Devers received the news that Stockdale would be his cellmate and concerning any statements Corrections Officer Hall made to Devers. (iv) Remaining Claims The State concedes that the remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, not addressed above, are sufficiently alleged, but the record is insufficient to review them. We need not address them further.