Opinion ID: 4557646
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: analysis

Text: Assignments Related to First Trial and Plea in Bar. Price’s first two assignments of error relate to the district court’s declaration of a mistrial in the first trial and its overruling of his plea in bar prior to the second trial. We determine that the Court of Appeals’ decision in Price’s appeal from the overruling of the plea in bar establishes the law of the case on both topics, and we therefore reject these two assignments of error. [8,9] Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, the holdings of an appellate court on questions presented to it in reviewing proceedings of the trial court become the law of the case; those holdings conclusively settle, for purposes of that litigation, all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. State v. Lavalleur, 298 Neb. 237, 903 N.W.2d 464 (2017). The law-of-the-case doctrine operates to preclude a reconsideration of substantially similar, if not identical, issues at successive stages of the same suit or prosecution. Id. [10,11] On appeal, the law-of-the-case doctrine is a rule of practice that operates to direct an appellate court’s discretion, not to limit its power. State v. Merchant, 288 Neb. 439, 848 N.W.2d 630 (2014). We have recognized that the doctrine does not apply if considerations of substantial justice suggest a reexamination of the issue is warranted. Id. But matters previously addressed in an appellate court are not reconsidered unless the petitioner presents materially and substantially different facts. State v. Lavalleur, supra. In the present case, Price had the opportunity and the incentive to raise matters regarding the plea in bar and the court’s - 53 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 treatment of the deadlocked jury in the context of his appeal to the Court of Appeals from the denial of his plea in bar. Such matters were considered in that appeal, and the Court of Appeals’ rulings on the issues resulted in affirmance of the denial of Price’s plea in bar. We denied further review of the Court of Appeals’ rulings, and therefore, such rulings establish the law of the case. Although it determined that it did not directly have jurisdiction to consider orders other than the order which denied the plea in bar, the Court of Appeals nevertheless was obligated to consider Price’s challenge regarding mistrial in the context of the plea in bar. And without further review, the Court of Appeals’ assessments with regard to the grant of mistrial established the law of the case. Price’s claim in this appeal differs from his claim in the first appeal, wherein he asserted that it was error not to poll the jury. Here, he focuses on inquiring of the jurors whether they were deadlocked as to just one or both counts. As noted in the facts section above, in the earlier appeal, the Court of Appeals acknowledged and rejected Price’s arguments based on his reading of State v. Combs, 297 Neb. 422, 900 N.W.2d 473 (2017). Instead, the Court of Appeals emphasized our statement in Combs that, although not required, it was “the better practice [to inquire] of the jury [and in doing so] whether it was deadlocked on every count before it granted a mistrial.” 297 Neb. at 430, 900 N.W.2d at 481. Thus, as the Court of Appeals noted, there was no abuse when the district court did not poll the jury in the first trial. The force of that reasoning continues to be the law of the case, and we do not think that in the current appeal, Price has presented materially and substantially different facts that would prompt us to reconsider those rulings. For example, Price has not, as did the defendant in Combs, shown evidence that jurors in his case were in fact not deadlocked on both counts or thought they had to be unanimous as to both counts. - 54 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 We therefore conclude that as to Price’s first two claims, the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the denial of the plea in bar establishes the law of the case, and that although they are recast, we will not reconsider those rulings in this appeal. We reject both assignments of error. Prosecutor’s Comments During Closing Argument. [12] Price next claims that the State committed prosecutorial misconduct based on various allegedly improper comments made during closing argument. Price acknowledges that he did not object to those statements at the time they were made and that he did not move for a mistrial based on the statements. A party who fails to make a timely motion for mistrial based on prosecutorial misconduct waives the right to assert on appeal that the court erred in not declaring a mistrial due to such prosecutorial misconduct. State v. Mrza, 302 Neb. 931, 926 N.W.2d 79 (2019). Because Price did not move for a mistrial, the alleged error was waived, and accordingly, our review of the issue is confined to a search for plain error. See id. [13-16] Prosecutorial misconduct encompasses conduct that violates legal or ethical standards for various contexts because the conduct will or may undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial. Id. Prosecutors are charged with the duty to conduct criminal trials in such a manner that the accused may have a fair and impartial trial, and prosecutors are not to inflame the prejudices or excite the passions of the jury against the accused. Id. A prosecutor’s conduct that does not mislead and unduly influence the jury does not constitute misconduct. Id. In assessing allegations of prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments, a court first determines whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper. It is then necessary to determine the extent to which the improper remarks had a prejudicial effect on the defendant’s right to a fair trial. Id. Price sets forth 35 remarks made by the prosecutor during closing arguments that he asserts were improper. He generally - 55 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 groups the remarks into five categories, including remarks that he alleges (1) state the personal belief or opinion of the prosecutor regarding the credibility of testimony or the strength of the evidence; (2) label Price as a liar or imply that inconsistencies in his statements are evidence of guilt; (3) inflame prejudices or excite passions of the jury; (4) misstate evidence, refer to matters not in evidence, suggest improper influences, or invite speculation; or (5) refer to other acts or wrongs that are not in evidence and would not have been allowed into evidence. We have reviewed each of the instances and find no plain error. Much of Price’s argument focuses on the prosecutor’s comments on the evidence, the strength of evidence, and the credibility of testimony. While we have recognized that a prosecutor should not express his or her personal belief or opinion as to the truth or falsity of any testimony or evidence or the guilt of the defendant, we have further stated: [W]hen a prosecutor’s comments rest on reasonably drawn inferences from the evidence, the prosecutor is permitted to present a spirited summation that a defense theory is illogical or unsupported by the evidence and to highlight the relative believability of witnesses for the State and the defense. Thus, in cases where the prosecutor comments on the theory of defense, the defendant’s veracity, or the defendant’s guilt, the prosecutor crosses the line into misconduct only if the prosecutor’s comments are expressions of the prosecutor’s personal beliefs rather than a summation of the evidence. State v. Gonzales, 294 Neb. 627, 645-46, 884 N.W.2d 102, 117 (2016). We reasoned in Gonzales that the danger of a prosecutor’s expressing a personal opinion is that the jurors may infer the prosecutor has access to information not in evidence and that with that inference and the imprimatur of the government, the jury might rest a decision on the government’s opinion rather than its own view of the evidence. In Gonzales, we rejected a rule that it is per se misconduct for the prosecutor to - 56 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 state that the defendant lied or is a liar. Instead, we adopted an approach that looks at the entire context of the language used to determine whether the prosecutor was expressing a personal opinion or merely submitting to the jury a conclusion that the prosecutor is arguing can be drawn from the evidence. If the prosecutor is commenting on the fact that the evidence supports the inference that the defendant lied, as opposed to a personal opinion carrying the imprimatur of the government, the comment is not misconduct. This is distinguishable from calling the defendant a “liar,” which is more likely to be perceived as a personal attack on the defendant’s character. Id. at 647, 884 N.W.2d at 118. Reviewing the State’s remarks in this case under that approach and considering them in context, we believe the remarks challenged by Price were inferences from the evidence rather than statements of the prosecutor’s personal opinion. Among his challenges, Price points to the instances where the prosecutor told the jurors to ask themselves “why is [Price] lying” and stated, “You know that is a lie.” However, when viewed in context, the remark arose where the prosecutor was discussing evidence from which it could be inferred that Price gave inconsistent statements and may have lied in order to cover his involvement. Other statements that Price characterizes as misstating the evidence or referring to matters not in evidence were instances of the prosecutor’s remarking on inferences that could be drawn from the evidence. Price also asserts that the State referred to other wrongs or acts that were not in evidence and would not be allowed into evidence. These remarks were in the context of discussing the surveillance video and the prosecutor’s characterizing the movements and actions of Price and his companion as indicating that “they are going out to take stuff,” “checking cars,” “out to steal,” and “out to take things from other people.” Such remarks do not state that Price actually committed wrongs or - 57 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 acts, other than those acts charged in this case, such as stealing from cars or from people other than Pantoja, and so are not improper references to other acts or crimes that were not and could not be in evidence. Instead, the prosecutor was commenting on what was depicted in the surveillance video and suggesting possible inferences the jury might make based on Price’s actions and movement depicted in the video. We do not find the remarks challenged by Price to be improper, and we therefore do not find error, let alone plain error, when the court did not sua sponte declare a mistrial based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct. We reject this assignment of error. Motion for New Trial. Price next claims that the district court abused its discretion when it overruled his motion for new trial. We find no such abuse of discretion. In his arguments in support of the motion for new trial, Price focused in large part on the alleged prosecutorial misconduct during closing argument. As we discussed above, we do not find such remarks to be improper, and as we did not find plain error in the failure to declare a mistrial based on such remarks, we also determine the court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a new trial based on the same remarks. See State v. Cotton, 299 Neb. 650, 910 N.W.2d 102 (2018) (finding no plain error in prosecutor’s statement to which defendant did not object and consequently finding no error in overruling motion for new trial based on prosecutorial misconduct), disapproved on other grounds, State v. Avina-Murilla, 301 Neb. 185, 917 N.W.2d 865 (2018). A second reason Price urged for a new trial was that, as he asserts in his brief, a police officer testified regarding “how photo lineups are created with mugshots including a mugshot of [Price].” Brief for appellant at 44. Price appears to imply that because there was a “mugshot” of Price, he had committed other crimes. Id. However, the record shows that in - 58 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 direct questioning by the State, the officer merely referred to the photographs as “still photos” or “local photos.” Price did not object to such testimony. Further information regarding the photographic lineup was adduced by Price on crossexamination when he asked a series of questions about how the lineup was created. In response, the officer referred to “book-in photos” and does not appear to have referred to “mugshots.” Whether such testimony was unresponsive or inadmissible, it was minor in the context of the entire trial and not unfairly prejudicial. The court did not abuse its discretion by determining it did not require a new trial. Finally, Price argued for a new trial because he alleged there was insufficient evidence to support the convictions. As discussed below, we conclude there was sufficient evidence. We therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it overruled Price’s motion for a new trial. We reject this assignment of error. Sufficiency of Evidence. Price next claims that the evidence was not sufficient to support his convictions. We conclude that the evidence was sufficient. [17] When a criminal defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence upon which a conviction is based, 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. State v. Case, 304 Neb. 829, 937 N.W.2d 216 (2020). Price was charged with aiding and abetting a robbery and for aiding and abetting a first degree assault. Robbery is defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324 (Reissue 2016) as being when, “with the intent to steal, [one] forcibly and by violence, or by putting in fear, takes from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatever.” First degree assault is defined in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-308 (Reissue - 59 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 2016) as when one “intentionally or knowingly causes serious bodily injury to another person.” The theory of aiding and abetting a criminal act is described in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-206 (Reissue 2016) which provides that a “person who aids, abets, procures, or causes another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he [or she] were the principal offender.” Our case law further defines “aiding and abetting” as follows: [A]iding and abetting requires some participation in a criminal act which must be evidenced by word, act, or deed, and mere encouragement or assistance is sufficient to make one an aider or abettor. No particular acts are necessary, however, nor is it necessary that the defendant take physical part in the commission of the crime or that there was an express agreement to commit the crime. Yet, evidence of mere presence, acquiescence, or silence is not enough to sustain the State’s burden of proving guilt under an aiding and abetting theory. State v. Stubbendieck, 302 Neb. 702, 716-17, 924 N.W.2d 711, 723 (2019). In this case, there was sufficient evidence, including the testimony of both Nartey and Pantoja, to establish that two men punched and kicked Pantoja to the extent of causing him serious bodily injury and that through the use of such violence, the men took property of value from Pantoja’s person. Nartey identified Price as one of the men who carried out the assault and robbery, and there was also circumstantial evidence including the surveillance video and the testimony of a police officer that placed Price in the vicinity of the incident around the time that the incident occurred. To the extent the evidence is not specific regarding which of the two men delivered the specific punches and kicks that caused Pantoja serious bodily injury or which of the two men took property of value from Pantoja’s person, the evidence was sufficient to show that if Price did not himself perform such acts, he aided and abetted the other man in doing so. See State v. Thomas, 210 Neb. - 60 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 298, 314 N.W.2d 15 (1981) (in context of brawl, attributing particular injuries to particular actions was difficult, but as participant in conspiratorial effort to harm victim, defendant was liable for all victim’s injuries). The evidence in this case indicates that two men participated in the criminal acts and that Price’s participation went beyond mere presence, acquiescence, or silence. Much of Price’s argument with regard to sufficiency of the evidence focuses on the credibility of Nartey’s identification of Price as one of the assailants. He argues that Nartey’s testimony was inconsistent and that Nartey’s description of the white man’s appearance and clothing differed from Price’s appearance and clothing at the time of the incident as shown in the surveillance video. For example, Nartey described the white male sometimes as being “bald” and other times as having “very short hair,” and Price asserts that the video shows that he “ha[d] hair” at the time, brief for appellant at 57. Price also argues that the clothing as shown in the video differs from Nartey’s description and that the video shows features such as tattoos, a watch, and earrings that Nartey did not include in his description of the assailant. Price argues that Nartey’s identification of Price was key to the case because there was no other evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, or other witness testimony to identify him as the assailant. With respect to inconsistencies, we note that Price was able to call the jury’s attention to any alleged inconsistencies in Nartey’s testimony and the jury was able to watch the video to determine whether Price’s appearance and clothing on that night were consistent with Nartey’s description of the assailant; it was then the jury’s duty to determine the credibility of Nartey’s in-court identification of Price as the assailant. We do not pass on the credibility of witnesses on appeal, State v. Case, 304 Neb. 829, 937 N.W.2d 216 (2020), and Nartey’s identification of Price, if believed by the jury, along with the other evidence presented at trial, supports Price’s convictions. - 61 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support Price’s convictions for aiding and abetting robbery and aiding and abetting first degree assault. We therefore reject this assignment of error. Excessive Sentences. Price finally claims that the district court imposed excessive sentences. We conclude that the sentences were within statutory limits and that the court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the sentences. Section 28-206 provides that one who aids and abets a crime “may be . . . punished as if he [or she] were the principal offender.” Under §§ 28-324(2) and 28-308(2), respectively, robbery and first degree assault are both Class II felonies. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105(1) (Reissue 2016), the sentence for a Class II felony is imprisonment for a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 50 years. The concurrent sentences of imprisonment for 25 to 40 years that the court imposed on Price were therefore within statutory limits. [18] Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed. State v. Becker, 304 Neb. 693, 936 N.W.2d 505 (2019). In determining a sentence to be imposed, relevant factors customarily considered and applied are the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or record of lawabiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime. Id. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life. Id. - 62 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 306 Nebraska Reports STATE v. PRICE Cite as 306 Neb. 38 Price argues that the district court ignored or failed to give adequate consideration to mitigating factors, including trauma and abuse in his childhood and mental health issues that arose therefrom, the likelihood he would be responsive to probation supervision based on how he had conducted himself in custody during the pendency of this case, letters attesting to his character, and the effect of his potential imprisonment on his wife and young child. He also argues that the court did not adequately consider he had a lower level of culpability in the crime than Curry, who Price argues was the “main aggressor” and “caused the serious injuries to [Pantoja].” Brief for appellant at 61. Price asserts that Curry was given “exactly the same sentence” as Price despite Curry’s greater culpability and less-compelling mitigating factors. Id. At sentencing, the court noted that it had reviewed the presentence report and heard argument by Price’s counsel, as well as Price’s own statement to the court. The presentence report and the statements at the sentencing hearing include the mitigating factors set forth above. The court stated that in determining Price’s sentence, it had regard for, inter alia, Price’s “history character and condition.” But the court also considered factors urged by the State, particularly noting the seriousness of the crime and the impact of the “severe injuries” to Pantoja on his life, his future, and his family and friends. There is nothing to indicate that the court considered inappropriate factors or that it ignored mitigating factors. We cannot say that the sentences were an abuse of discretion. We reject this assignment of error.