Court Opinion

ID: 9672568
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:57:24.633377+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:17.009365
License: Public Domain

Stephan, J.,
concurring.
I write separately only to state my position with respect to the references to State v. Dixon, 259 Neb. 976, 614 N.W.2d 288 (2000), in the majority opinion. My partial dissent in that case was based upon my conclusion that because the tape-recorded telephone conversations at issue were not testimonial in nature, *1015the trial court did not abuse its discretion in providing playback equipment to the jury for unrestricted review of the tapes during its deliberation. In the present case, however, the evidence reread to the jury was clearly testimonial in nature, and for that reason I agree that the principles stated in Dixon would apply if Gutierrez had not waived objection by assenting to the rereading of testimony to the jury by the court reporter.