Opinion ID: 1667817
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: nebraska court of appeals

Text: Tucker appealed his convictions to the Nebraska Court of Appeals. [1] Among other assignments of error no longer relevant, Tucker argued there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the charge of use of a weapon to commit a felony, especially in light of the trial court's finding that he did not intentionally kill Everbeck. Although the Court of Appeals recognized that the predicate felony for use of a deadly weapon must be intentional, it found the evidence sufficient to support the trial court's finding of the intentional act of terroristic threats. The Court of Appeals did not address the trial court's findings of first or second degree assault. A partial dissent to the case argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove any of these predicate offenses. With regard to first or second degree assault, the dissent argued, The mere fact that the victim in this case was killed does not allow an inference that Tucker intended to inflict any bodily injury .... [2] As for terroristic threats, the dissent argued that the majority's opinion results in the inescapable conclusion that anytime somebody holds a firearm in the presence of somebody else, there has been a terroristic threat, and there is no authority for such an expansive conclusion. [3] We granted Tucker's petition for further review.