 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dudney11/12/2002
Dudney was under the influence of alcohol, (3) denying certain discovery motions made by Dudney, (4) sustaining the prosecution's motion in limine regarding the admissibility of allegations against a witness for false reporting, (5) overruling Dudney's objections to certain remarks of the prosecutor during voir dire, (6) against the giving of a jury instruction requested by Dudney, (7) denying Dudney's motion for new trial, and (8) as to certain evidence. Dudney also asserts that his due process rights were violated in regard to certain discovery matters.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Upon appeal from a county court in a criminal case, a district court acts as an intermediate appellate court, rather than as a trial court, and its review is limited to an examination of the county court record for error or abuse of discretion. State v. Cardona, 10 Neb. App. 815, 639 N.W.2d 653 (2002). Both a district court and a higher appellate court generally review appeals from a county court for error appearing on the record. Id.
When reviewing a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, an appellate court does not reweigh the evidence or resolve conflicts in the evidence, but, rather, recognizes the trial court as the finder of fact and takes into consideration that it observed the witnesses. State v. Faber, 264 Neb. 198, 647 N.W.2d 67 (2002). In reviewing a district court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence obtained through a warrantless search or seizure, an appellate court conducts a de novo review of reasonable suspicion and probable cause determinations, and reviews factual findings for clear error, giving due weight to the inferences drawn from those facts by the trial judge. State v. Roberts, 261 Neb. 403, 623 N.W.2d 298 (2001).
In all proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules, not judicial discretion, except in those instances under the rules when judicial discretion is a factor involved in determining admissibility. State v. Castor, 262 Neb. 423, 632 N.W.2d 298 (2001).
Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. State v. Castor, supra. A judicial abuse of discretion means that the reasons or rulings of the trial court are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition. Id.
In a criminal case, a motion for new trial is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, and unless an abuse of discretion is shown, the trial court's determination will not be disturbed. State v. Bao, 263 Neb. 439, 640 N.W.2d 405 (2002).
ANALYSIS
Motion to Suppress.
Dudney asserts that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress all evidence obtained as a result of the traffic stop and arrest of Dudney. Police can constitutionally stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the police have a reasonable suspicion, supported by articulable facts, that criminal activity exists, even if probable cause is lacking under the Fourth Amendment. Newton v. Huffman, 10 Neb. App. 390, 632 N.W.2d 344 (2001). Limited investigatory stops are permissible only upon a reasonable suspicion, supported by specific and articulable facts, that the person is, was, or is about to be engaged in criminal activity. State v. Coleman, 10 Neb. App. 337, 630 N.W.2d 686 (2001). Reasonable suspicion entails some minimal level of objective justification for detention, something more than an inchoate and unparticularized su
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Nebraska DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|