Court Opinion

ID: 9685063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:22:20.105434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:02.070613
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I concur in the result reached in this case because I believe that the direct evidence concerning Scott’s involvement in the charged offense was overwhelming.
*243For reasons, however, more particularly set out in my dissent in State v. Ellis, 208 Neb. 379, 303 N.W.2d 741 (1981), I must disagree with that portion of the majority’s opinion which finds that it was proper for the witness Turner to be permitted to testify that she had been with the defendant on one other occasion when he had broken the window of the Bel Air Fashions for Men and stolen some clothes. It is not sufficient for the prosecution to simply offer evidence of other crimes on the general claim that in some manner it is offered for the purpose of showing motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, and modus operandi. In fact, it must be offered for a specific purpose and the prosecution must be able to establish in advance what that purpose is. To take any other position is to simply repeal the first portion of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) (Reissue 1979), which provides: “Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith.”