Opinion ID: 3211934
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: the majority is bound by

Text: OUR PREVIOUS HOLDINGS As stated, our independent relevance standard and procedures for admitting evidence under rule 404(2) has been the law since 1999. Yet, the majority has not overruled any of these cases, nor could it convincingly do so. When we have interpreted or established a rule, the doctrine of stare decisis applies. It requires us to adhere to our previous decisions “unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so.”16 The doctrine “is grounded in the public policy that the law should be stable, fostering both equality and predictability of treatment.”17 And major legal commentators have advocated our independent relevance standard.18 It is consistent with the holdings of 15 See U.S. v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50 (2d Cir. 2011). 16 Potter v. McCulla, 288 Neb. 741, 753, 851 N.W.2d 94, 104 (2014). 17 State v. Hausmann, 277 Neb. 819, 828, 765 N.W.2d 219, 226 (2009). 18 See sources cited supra note 13. - 814 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 many other courts.19 So there is nothing manifestly wrong with our approach to this evidentiary rule—and much to lament about the standardless rule to which the majority would apparently revert. But the majority’s mere suggestion that it disagrees with our established precedent is ineffective to change it unless it overrules or disapproves our precedent. By requiring appellate courts to adhere to their previous decisions in most circumstances, the doctrine of stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” . . . Although “not an inexorable command” . . . stare decisis is a foundation stone of the rule of law, necessary to ensure that legal rules develop “in a principled and intelligible fashion.”20 And the doctrine should apply with greatest force to our decisions on evidentiary issues because lower courts and practitioners must predictably apply these rules daily. But the important point here is that the majority has not overruled our established precedent. Under the doctrine of stare decisis then, the standard of admissibility under rule 404(2) continues to be independent relevance—as we have defined and applied it. That means that the trial court properly admitted evidence of Oldson’s extrinsic acts or statements only if it was relevant to a fact of consequence independent of an inference that Oldson acted in conformity with a character trait. But before addressing that issue, I turn to the meaning of independent 19 See, e.g., U.S. v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010); U.S. v. Commanche, 577 F.3d 1261 (10th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Varoudakis, 233 F.3d 113 (1st Cir. 2000); State v. Cassavaugh, 161 N.H. 90, 12 A.3d 1277 (2010); State v. Johnson, 340 Or. 319, 131 P.3d 173 (2006); State v. Clifford, 328 Mont. 300, 121 P.3d 489 (2005); Masters v. People, 58 P.3d 979 (Colo. 2002). 20 Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Community, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S. Ct. 2024, 2036, 188 L. Ed. 2d 1071 (2014) (citations omitted). - 815 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports STATE v. OLDSON Cite as 293 Neb. 718 relevance as it specifically relates to a defendant’s consciousness of guilt.