 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Dudney11/12/2002
trial court erred by sustaining the prosecution's motion in limine regarding Monday's false reporting arrest and by ruling that such evidence was inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-404 and 27-608 (Reissue 1995). Dudney sought discovery of these reports and made an offer of proof concerning the investigation of Monday to aid him in challenging Monday's truthfulness. Dudney also argues that a custody dispute pending between Dudney and Monday at the time of trial in the present matter provided motivation for Monday to lie to law enforcement officials concerning the present matter.
The vast majority of Monday's testimony related to the assault charge. As Dudney was acquitted of this charge, the district court did not consider these assignments of error. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. State v. McCurry, 5 Neb. App. 526, 561 N.W.2d 244 (1997). Likewise, we do not consider these assignments of error beyond noting that the information Monday provided Jensen regarding the DUI charge for which Dudney was convicted (namely, that Dudney had been drinking and was driving a white pickup) turned out to be true. We also note that the custody dispute between Dudney and Monday arose in September 2000 and that Monday was investigated for false reporting by the Kimball Police Department, not the sheriff's department, on several occasions in November 2000, all occurring several months after the incident presently at issue before this court. The district court did not err in refusing to consider these assignments of error further, as they have no bearing on the resolution of Dudney's appeal of his DUI conviction.
Voir Dire Remarks.
Dudney asserts that the trial court erred in overruling Dudney's objections to certain remarks of the prosecutor during voir dire and in failing to grant a mistrial in relation to these remarks. Dudney first complains of a hypothetical question posed by the prosecutor during jury selection wherein the prosecutor asked a juror whether a certain set of facts was sufficient for one to find that an assault occurred. At the close of voir dire, Dudney made a motion for mistrial that appears to have been directed solely at the prosecutor's hypothetical question regarding assault, but made no request for admonishment of the jury. The trial court overruled Dudney's motion for mistrial.
The hypothetical question of which Dudney complains related only to the evidence necessary for an assault conviction and not to the DUI charge. Because Dudney was acquitted of the assault charge, he can show no actual prejudice from the prosecutor's question as it relates to his conviction for DUI. Accordingly, we do not further consider Dudney's assignment of error as it relates to the question or to his motion for mistrial.
Dudney also complains of further questioning by the prosecutor during jury selection, concerning the presumption of innocence. The prosecutor asked:
And you all also understand that the presumption of innocence, it's a rule of law, it's not intended to allow a guilty person to go free? It doesn't mean the person is, in fact, innocent, it just means they are presumed innocent until they are proven guilty. Do you all understand that?
Dudney's objection to the above questioning was overruled by the trial court. Although Dudney did not address his motion for mistrial to this questioning or seek a jury admonition related to these prosecutorial remarks, the trial court explained during its preliminary instructions to the jury that " counsel has repeatedly talked about the presumption of innocence. I want you to know what it means
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.
|
|