Court Opinion

ID: 9696896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:01:14.279415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:27.524154
License: Public Domain

White,, C. J.,
concurring.
As the supplemental opinion points out, this identical, or almost identical, sentence as a part of the credibility instruction, has been declared faultless in many Nebraska cases, as late as Franz v. State, 156 Neb. 587, 57 N. W. 2d 139. No case can be discovered to the contrary. An admonition to reconcile evidence and to conform it to reason, if possible, is something quite different from a mandate to reject a witness’ testimony on certain *323conditions, which was the basis of the holding's - relied upon in the original opinions in Wilson v. State, 150 Neb. 436, 34 N. W. 2d 880, and Frank v. State, 150 Neb. 745, 35 N. W. 2d 816. The Franz holding, clearing this instruction from an identical attack, was after the Wilson and Frank cases, and without dissent.
“Should” is the past tense of the word “shall.” Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary (2d ed.), p. 1679, gives this primary meaning, “an auxiliary used to express obligation, duty, propriety, necessity.” (Italics supplied.) Let us look at this whole instruction quoted in the supplemental opinion, the other portions referred to here being our classic jury instruction and unchallenged in our instructional history. First, we tell the jurors that they are the “sole judges” of credibility and “weight” of the evidence. Then, we tell them that in weighing the evidence they should (i.e., obligation to, their duty to) consider:
1. The interest of the witness in the result of the case.
2. His conduct and demeanor.
3. His apparent fairness or bias.
4. His memory and opportunity for observation.'
5. The extent of corroboration.
6. The reasonableness or unreasonableness of his testimony.
We have never considered this direction as to principles to be used in evaluating weight as touching on or invading the jury’s sole prerogative to determine weight and credibility. No one suggests that an inference of judicially directed rejection may be inferred from the language used. Now if a jury “should,” if it has the duty to, determine the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the testimony, then in order to perform that “duty,” it follows that it should determine the reconcilability of evidence, if it can. To reconcile (Webster’s New Twentieth Century Dictionary, 2d ed.) means “to settle or compose a difference,” “to bring into harmony.” *324Reasonable means “amenable, conformable, or agreeable to reason.” Is the testimony harmonious with, amenable to, and agreeable to human reason and experience?
To reconcile the evidence, to settle and compose it, and make it agreeable to reason, if you can, is nothing more than a guideline to the jury to apply the fundamental processes of human reason. Resolving conflicts in the evidence, embracing but not synonymous with credibility is almost the total function of the jury.
The original opinion and dissent to the supplemental opinion seem to assume that the court by using the language in. question, requires the jurors to reconcile or harmonize evidence which they might independently find to be untrue.
There is no language in this instruction that says this. Because of the chronology of pronouncement in the challenged sentence, it is apparently assumed that there is a bar to credible consideration until reconciliation is disposed of. Such a hair-splitting differential ignores the context and the total impact of the contextual meaning disclosed on full reading. This is made abundantly clear in the conjunctive admonition at the end, “and give such weight to the testimony of any witness as in your- judgment it should have under all the circumstances of the case” (Italics supplied.)
There are two further considerations here which are important:
. 1. There is no restriction on the range of the. jury’s original determination of what evidence it shall consider to be “conflicting or irreconcilable.”
2. A- jury is a legal unit, but in the deliberative process, it is composed of 12 individual persons also. The composing of differences and the reconciliation process are of the essence of its function. Irreconcilability often reveals falsity in evidence or testimony that is apparently credible, and reconciliation may support an otherwise apparently poor witness.. •
*325These processes are interwoven in the attempt to reach the truth. And, finally, what, recourse would a jury have, irreconcilability having been determined, other than an independent determination of truth or untruth. If the jurors were told that they must reconcile evidence they would otherwise find to be untrue, or to reject the testimony of any witness, then the holdings in the Wilson and Frank cases would become applicable.
The power and the freedom to determine credibility is not invaded. The admonitions and guidelines of principle for the evaluation of weight are properly enjoined upon the jury. Nothing less should be asked of the jury, and nothing more can be required by the court.