questioned instruction in Nebraska

2018State v. Hinrichsen, 292 Neb. 611 , 877 N.W.2d 211 (2016). (b) Analysis Jury instruction No. 7 provided to the jury informed it of the elements of the charge of first degree sexual assault.

2018State v. Hinrichsen, 292 Neb. 611 , 877 N.W.2d 211 (2016). (b) Analysis Jury instruction No. 7 provided to the jury informed it of the elements of the charge of first degree sexual assault.

2000Everts v. Hardcopf-Bickley, 257 Neb. 151 , 595 N.W.2d 911 (1999); Tapp v. Blackmore Ranch, 254 Neb. 40 , 575 N.W.2d 341 (1998); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 , 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995).

2000Everts v. Hardcopf-Bickley, 257 Neb. 151 , 595 N.W.2d 911 (1999); Tapp v. Blackmore Ranch, 254 Neb. 40 , 575 N.W.2d 341 (1998); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 , 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995).

2000Everts v. Hardcopf-Bickley, 257 Neb. 151 , 595 N.W.2d 911 (1999); Tapp v. Blackmore Ranch, 254 Neb. 40 , 575 N.W.2d 341 (1998); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 , 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995).

2000Everts v. Hardcopf-Bickley, 257 Neb. 151 , 595 N.W.2d 911 (1999); Tapp v. Blackmore Ranch, 254 Neb. 40 , 575 N.W.2d 341 (1998); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 , 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995).

2004Mowell, supra; State v. Derry, 248 Neb. 260 , 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995). 2.

2004Mowell, supra; State v. Derry, 248 Neb. 260 , 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995). 2.

2000Everts v. Hardcopf-Bickley, 257 Neb. 151 , 595 N.W.2d 911 (1999); Tapp v. Blackmore Ranch, 254 Neb. 40 , 575 N.W.2d 341 (1998); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 , 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995).

2000Everts v. Hardcopf-Bickley, 257 Neb. 151 , 595 N.W.2d 911 (1999); Tapp v. Blackmore Ranch, 254 Neb. 40 , 575 N.W.2d 341 (1998); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297 , 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995).

1999State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 , 550 N.W.2d 364 (1996).

1999State v. McHenry, 250 Neb. 614 , 550 N.W.2d 364 (1996).

2025State v. Swindle, 300 Neb. 734 , 915 N.W.2d 795 (2018).

2018Stat. § 28-830 (14) (Reissue 2016) (now found at § 28-830(12) (Supp. 2017)). - 744 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 300 Nebraska R eports STATE v. SWINDLE Cite as 300 Neb. 734 aside Swindle’s habitual criminal status, sex trafficking of a minor is a Class IB felony,8 with a minimum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of life imprisonment; whereas sex trafficking of an adult is a Class II felony,9 with a minimum penalty of 1 year’s imprisonment and a maximum of 50 years’ imprisonment.10 [7,8] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has t

2022Id.

2008Id.

1998Sacco v. Carothers, 253 Neb. 9 , 567 N.W.2d 299 (1997).

1998Sacco v. Carothers, 253 Neb. 9 , 567 N.W.2d 299 (1997).

2026State v. Fernandez, 313 Neb. 745 , 986 N.W.2d 53 (2023).

2026State v. Fernandez, 313 Neb. 745 , 986 N.W.2d 53 (2023).

2019Specifically, he requested that the jury be instructed that - 819 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MANN Cite as 302 Neb. 804 “‘stolen’ means ‘to take or exercise control over movable property of another with the intent to deprive him or her thereof.’”40 On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in refusing that instruction. [19,20] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant.

2019Specifically, he requested that the jury be instructed that - 819 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MANN Cite as 302 Neb. 804 “‘stolen’ means ‘to take or exercise control over movable property of another with the intent to deprive him or her thereof.’”40 On appeal, he argues that the district court erred in refusing that instruction. [19,20] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant.

2019State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 , 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017). [13,14] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant.

2019State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 , 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017). [13,14] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant.

2016State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178 , 719 N.W.2d 263 (2006).

2016State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178 , 719 N.W.2d 263 (2006).

2003Nebraska Nutrients v. Shepherd, 261 Neb. 723 , 626 N.W.2d 472 (2001).

2003Nebraska Nutrients v. Shepherd, 261 Neb. 723 , 626 N.W.2d 472 (2001).

2000Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995); Sindelar v. Canada Transport, Inc., 246 Neb. 559 , 520 N.W.2d 203 (1994).

2000Hamernick v. Essex Dodge Ltd., 247 Neb. 392 , 527 N.W.2d 196 (1995); Sindelar v. Canada Transport, Inc., 246 Neb. 559 , 520 N.W.2d 203 (1994).

1996State v. Derry, 248 Neb. 260 , 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995); State v. McHenry, 247 Neb. 167 , 525 N.W.2d 620 (1995); State v. Flye, 245 Neb. 495 , 513 N.W.2d 526 (1994).

1996State v. Derry, 248 Neb. 260 , 534 N.W.2d 302 (1995); State v. McHenry, 247 Neb. 167 , 525 N.W.2d 620 (1995); State v. Flye, 245 Neb. 495 , 513 N.W.2d 526 (1994).

1995State v. Gatson, 244 Neb. 231 , 505 N.W.2d 696 (1993); State v. Messersmith, 238 Neb. 924 , 473 N.W.2d 83 (1991).

1995State v. Gatson, 244 Neb. 231 , 505 N.W.2d 696 (1993); State v. Messersmith, 238 Neb. 924 , 473 N.W.2d 83 (1991).

1994Petska v. Olson Gravel, Inc., 243 Neb. 568 , 500 N.W.2d 828 (1993); Kozeny v. Miller, 243 Neb. 402 , 499 N.W.2d 75 (1993); Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991).

1994Petska v. Olson Gravel, Inc., 243 Neb. 568 , 500 N.W.2d 828 (1993); Kozeny v. Miller, 243 Neb. 402 , 499 N.W.2d 75 (1993); Sikyta v. Arrow Stage Lines, 238 Neb. 289 , 470 N.W.2d 724 (1991).

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2026STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] A motion to alter or amend a judgment is addressed to the discretion of the trial court, whose decision will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of that discretion. 2 [2,3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision. 3 In an appeal based upon a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejudicial or otherwise adversely affected a substantial right of the appellant. 4 [4,5] A motion for new trial is address

2019Supp. 2018). - 684 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. PAEZ Cite as 302 Neb. 676 prosecution.23 In contrast, utilizing an electronic communica- tion device to transmit lewd or sexually explicit material or to offer or solicit indecent acts is not a crime when the recipi- ent is age 16 or over (unless the recipient is “a peace officer who is believed by [the defendant] to be a child under sixteen years of age”).24 [4] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejud

2019Supp. 2018). - 684 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 302 Nebraska R eports STATE v. PAEZ Cite as 302 Neb. 676 prosecution.23 In contrast, utilizing an electronic communica- tion device to transmit lewd or sexually explicit material or to offer or solicit indecent acts is not a crime when the recipi- ent is age 16 or over (unless the recipient is “a peace officer who is believed by [the defendant] to be a child under sixteen years of age”).24 [4] In an appeal based on a claim of an erroneous jury instruction, the appellant has the burden to show that the questioned instruction was prejud

2015State v. Robinson, 278 Neb. 212 , 769 N.W.2d 366 (2009).

2015State v. Robinson, 278 Neb. 212 , 769 N.W.2d 366 (2009).

2009State v. Welch, 275 Neb. 517 , 747 N.W.2d 613 (2008).

2009State v. Welch, 275 Neb. 517 , 747 N.W.2d 613 (2008).