Court Opinion

ID: 9657610
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:31:37.489275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:46.746021
License: Public Domain

Lanphier, J.,
concurring.
I concur with the majority’s holding that the evidence adduced was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. However, I write separately because I do not believe, as the majority concludes, that the inference of guilt was as strong as the inference of nonguilt. Additionally, the majority’s adoption of new rules concerning when a trial court should not submit a case to the trier of fact is unnecessary and conflicts with our existing standard for directed verdicts.
The majority correctly concludes that all the evidence against Skalberg was circumstantial. However, the scope of review used by the majority to determine whether the evidence against Skalberg was sufficient to sustain his convictions was the wrong one.
Generally, when a criminal conviction on a claim of insufficiency of evidence is reviewed, circumstantial evidence is to be treated the same as direct evidence; and the State, upon review, is entitled to have all conflicting evidence, direct and circumstantial, and the reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence viewed in its favor. State v. Phelps, 241 Neb. 707, 490 N.W.2d 676 (1992); State v. Sexton, 240 Neb. 466, 482 N.W.2d 567 (1992); State v. Morley, 239 Neb. 141, 474 N.W.2d 660 (1991). See, State v. Saltzman, 235 Neb. 964, 458 N.W.2d 239 (1990); State v. Nesbitt, 226 Neb. 32, 409 N.W.2d 314 (1987); State v. Buchanan, 210 Neb. 20, 312 N.W.2d 684 (1981). However, circumstantial evidence is to be taken most favorably to the accused when circumstantial evidence is the only basis upon which to support a conviction and the circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations, one of guilt and the other of nonguilt, and neither inference is stronger than the other. State v. Mowry, 245 Neb. 213, 512 N.W.2d 140 *160(1994); State v. Covarrubias, 244 Neb. 366, 507 N.W.2d 248 (1993); State v. Ruiz, 241 Neb. 693, 489 N.W.2d 865 (1992); State v. LaFreniere, 240 Neb. 258, 481 N.W.2d 412 (1992); State v. Dawson, 240 Neb. 89, 480 N.W.2d 700 (1992); State v. Earlywine, 191 Neb. 533, 215 N.W.2d 895 (1974); State v. Faircloth, 181 Neb. 333, 148 N.W.2d 187 (1967); Reyes v. State, 151 Neb. 636, 38 N.W.2d 539 (1949).
The majority, concluding that the inference of nonguilt was as strong as the inference of guilt, applies this second scope of review. However, I disagree with this conclusion. Even if the State is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the evidence adduced was insufficient to support a guilty verdict. From the evidence adduced, the most that can be reasonably inferred to support Skalberg’s guilt is that burglaries were committed, that Skalberg knew the burglaries had been committed by Edwards, and that after the burglaries Skalberg was found with Edwards and some stolen items. These reasonable inferences do not prove that Skalberg committed burglary — that he willfully, maliciously, and forcibly broke into and entered any real estate or improvements erected thereon with intent to commit any felony or with intent to steal property of any value. The inference of guilt was not nearly as strong as the inference of nonguilt.
Since the inferences of guilt and nonguilt are not equally as strong, this court should have reviewed the evidence under the general standard of review. Mowry, supra. Under the general standard of review, the evidence is insufficient to sustain a verdict of guilt.
In addition to applying the wrong scope of review, the majority has, without explanation or precedent, set a new standard for when a case should not be submitted to the trier of fact. The majority requires a trial court in either a bench or a jury trial to determine whether, “circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations . . . .” Once this determination has been made, the majority requires the trial court to determine whether the inference of guilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of nonguilt. The majority opinion then provides that if the trial court determines the inference of nonguilt is stronger than or equal to the inference of guilt, then *161the case should not be submitted to the trier of fact.
The majority does not explain when the trial court is supposed to make this determination. The majority does not say if a defendant must make a motion in order for the trial court to make such a determination, and the majority has not explained what type of motion must be made, if a motion is necessary. The majority opinion merely states that the determination must be made.
The determination of a trial court to not submit a case to the trier of fact is effectively a ruling on a motion for a directed verdict. However, we already have standards for when a trial court should direct a verdict. In a criminal case, a trial court can direct a verdict only when there is a complete failure of evidence to establish an essential element of the crime charged or the evidence is so doubtful in character, lacking in probative value, that a finding of guilt based on such evidence cannot be sustained. State v. Hirsch, 245 Neb. 31, 511 N.W.2d 69 (1994). That is to say, a directed verdict is proper only when reasonable minds cannot differ and can draw but one conclusion from the evidence, where an issue should be decided as a matter of law. Id.
The majority’s new rule instructing a trial court to not submit a case to the trier of fact although reasonable minds differ is contrary to our longstanding rule for directed verdicts. As just stated, directed verdicts are only proper where reasonable minds cannot differ. However, the majority requires a trial court to not submit a case to the trier of fact in instances where “circumstantial evidence is reasonably susceptible of two interpretations . . . .” If evidence is reasonably susceptible to two interpretations, then it follows that reasonable minds may differ. The majority, therefore, requires trial courts to take action equivalent to directing a verdict although reasonable minds differ. The majority makes this change without reference to our prior standard or to the reason for the change. I see no reason to depart from our old rule and would not make such a change.
White, J., joins in this concurrence.