witness defense in Nebraska

2023The record is insufficient to review this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 State v. Tyler, 301 Neb. 365 , 918 N.W.2d 306 (2018). 68 Brief for appellant at 12. 69 Id. at 13. - 697 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023The record is insufficient to review this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 State v. Tyler, 301 Neb. 365 , 918 N.W.2d 306 (2018). 68 Brief for appellant at 12. 69 Id. at 13. - 697 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023The record is insufficient to review this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 State v. Tyler, 301 Neb. 365 , 918 N.W.2d 306 (2018). 68 Brief for appellant at 12. 69 Id. at 13. - 697 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023The record is insufficient to review this claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in this direct appeal. 65 Id. 66 Id. 67 State v. Tyler, 301 Neb. 365 , 918 N.W.2d 306 (2018). 68 Brief for appellant at 12. 69 Id. at 13. - 697 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2017Hairston relies in large part on State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 797 , 305 N.W.2d 808 (1981), in which we concluded that there was prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecution intimidated a witness for the defense and caused him to refuse to testify.

2017Hairston relies in large part on State v. Ammons, 208 Neb. 797 , 305 N.W.2d 808 (1981), in which we concluded that there was prosecutorial misconduct when the prosecution intimidated a witness for the defense and caused him to refuse to testify.

2025And we are sensitive to some of the concerns expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massaro[ v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S. Ct. 1690 , 155 L.

2025And we are sensitive to some of the concerns expressed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Massaro[ v. United States, 538 U.S. 500 , 123 S. Ct. 1690 , 155 L.

2022The court has since held that “[a]ppellate counsel must give on direct appeal the names or descriptions of any uncalled witnesses forming the basis of a claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.” State v. Lee, 304 Neb. 252, 282 , 934 N.W.2d 145 , 166 (2019).

2020Sierra also assigns that his attorney was deficient by fail- ing to (1) comply with discovery; (2) serve notice of Sierra’s alibi; (3) move for a continuance at the hearing on the motion - 257 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. SIERRA Cite as 305 Neb. 249 in limine; (4) call Sierra’s fiance as a witness for the defense; (5) depose Sierra’s brother, mother, and fiance, as well as two potential alibi witnesses, prior to trial; (6) communicate with Sierra to prepare for trial; (7) assert a double jeopardy claim; (8) move to suppress identification evidence and e

2019State v. Oliveira-Coutinho, 291 Neb. 294, 308-09 , 865 N.W.2d 740 , 756 (2015).

2018His postconviction motion alleges counsel was ineffective for (1) not moving to recuse the trial judge; (2) failing to object to jury instructions Nos. 6, 11, 12, and 20; (3) failing to file notice of his alibi defense and present certain alibi evidence; (4) failing to object and move for a mistrial during closing arguments; (5) failing to raise a confrontation objection at a hearing on his motion for new trial; (6) abandoning, during the hearing on the motion for new trial, all arguments except juror misconduct; (7) failing to call a witness at the hearing 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. - 799 - Nebraska S

2018His postconviction motion alleges counsel was ineffective for (1) not moving to recuse the trial judge; (2) failing to object to jury instructions Nos. 6, 11, 12, and 20; (3) failing to file notice of his alibi defense and present certain alibi evidence; (4) failing to object and move for a mistrial during closing arguments; (5) failing to raise a confrontation objection at a hearing on his motion for new trial; (6) abandoning, during the hearing on the motion for new trial, all arguments except juror misconduct; (7) failing to call a witness at the hearing 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 Id. - 799 - Nebraska S

2017We explained that “we can think of no good reason why [an appellant] would be unable to give appellate counsel the names or descriptions of the uncalled witnesses he claims 35 Id. 36 Id. at 53. - 202 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MORA Cite as 298 Neb. 185 he informed trial counsel of.”37 And we previously expressed concern “with the lack of any specificity as to who those uncalled witnesses were from the standpoint of a potential postconviction court’s ability to identify if a particular fail- ure to call a witness claim is the same one that was raised

2017We explained that “we can think of no good reason why [an appellant] would be unable to give appellate counsel the names or descriptions of the uncalled witnesses he claims 35 Id. 36 Id. at 53. - 202 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MORA Cite as 298 Neb. 185 he informed trial counsel of.”37 And we previously expressed concern “with the lack of any specificity as to who those uncalled witnesses were from the standpoint of a potential postconviction court’s ability to identify if a particular fail- ure to call a witness claim is the same one that was raised

2015Ballew asked Tucker whether he had shown Klapperich a photo- graphic lineup, and Tucker replied, “I did.” Ballew then asked Tucker whether he recalled how many photographs he - 599 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 291 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BALLEW Cite as 291 Neb. 577 had shown Klapperich.

1989State v. Burow, 223 Neb. 867 , 394 N.W.2d 665 (1986); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L.

1989State v. Burow, 223 Neb. 867 , 394 N.W.2d 665 (1986); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L.

1989State v. Burow, 223 Neb. 867 , 394 N.W.2d 665 (1986); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L.

1989State v. Burow, 223 Neb. 867 , 394 N.W.2d 665 (1986); Minnesota v. Murphy, 465 U.S. 420 , 104 S. Ct. 1136 , 79 L.

1987State v. Swillie, 218 Neb. 551 , 357 N.W.2d 212 (1984).

1987State v. Swillie, 218 Neb. 551 , 357 N.W.2d 212 (1984).

1981In United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir. 1973), the court held that the actions of the prosecutor, in gratuitously admonishing a witness of the possibility that he might be prosecuted for misprision of *812 felony if he testified, constituted prejudicial error, even though evidence of defendant's guilt was overwhelming.

1981In United States v. Thomas, 488 F.2d 334 (6th Cir. 1973), the court held that the actions of the prosecutor, in gratuitously admonishing a witness of the possibility that he might be prosecuted for misprision of felony if he testified, constituted prejudicial error, even though evidence of defendant’s guilt was overwhelming.

1976When the State calls a witness to challenge defendant’s claim of truth and veracity, “a line of inquiry directed towards the defendant’s previous character is firmly forbidden the State on direct examination.” State v. Newte, 188 Neb. 412 , 197 N. W. 2d 403 .

1976When the State calls a witness to challenge defendant’s claim of truth and veracity, “a line of inquiry directed towards the defendant’s previous character is firmly forbidden the State on direct examination.” State v. Newte, 188 Neb. 412 , 197 N. W. 2d 403 .

1969Cardenas v. Peterson Bean Co., 180 Neb. 605 , 144 N. W. 2d 154 (1966).

1969Cardenas v. Peterson Bean Co., 180 Neb. 605 , 144 N. W. 2d 154 (1966).

1963Clearly, the offer is much broader *83 than the question .and is within the rule - announced in Perkins v. Tilton, 53 Neb. 440 , 73 N. W. 930 , that: “An offer to prove, to lay the foundation for the proper presentment of error in the exclusion of proposed testimony as answer to a question to which ah objection is sustained, must be of matter which would have been admitted as relevant, responsive, and pertinent in answer to the rejected interrogatory.” Defendant, by proper questions, could have elicited everything that was said and done in the'transaction which resulted in the giving of the ch

1963Clearly, the offer is much broader *83 than the question .and is within the rule - announced in Perkins v. Tilton, 53 Neb. 440 , 73 N. W. 930 , that: “An offer to prove, to lay the foundation for the proper presentment of error in the exclusion of proposed testimony as answer to a question to which ah objection is sustained, must be of matter which would have been admitted as relevant, responsive, and pertinent in answer to the rejected interrogatory.” Defendant, by proper questions, could have elicited everything that was said and done in the'transaction which resulted in the giving of the ch

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1949In re Estate of Jelinek, 146 Neb. 452 , 20 N. W. 2d 325 ; Craig v. Seebecker, supra; Rogers v. Casady, 134 Neb. 227 , 278 N. W. 267 ; Oft v. Ohrt, 128 Neb. 848 , 260 N. W. 571 ; Sorensen v. Sorensen, 56 Neb. 729 , 77 N. W. 68 .

1916This question was before the court in Argabright v. State, 49 Neb. 760 , where it was said: “The jury are the sole judges of the credibility of witnesses, and it is error for a trial court, in a criminal case, to single out a particular witness for the defense, by name, and give to the jury a cautionary instruction which applies directly to his testimony the rule of ‘falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus’ ” Appellee contends that this rule has no application in civil cases; that, this being a civil case,- the rule should be disregarded.