district court committed plain error in Nebraska

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2018Although we agree with Huerta that the district court did err in its instructions to the jury, we find that such error was harmless. - 182 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. HUERTA Cite as 26 Neb.

2018Nevertheless, we find that the court’s omission does not require reversal because such omission constituted a harmless error. [13] Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not - 184 - Nebraska Court of A ppeals A dvance Sheets 26 Nebraska A ppellate R eports STATE v. HUERTA Cite as 26 Neb.

2023RAMIREZ Cite as 314 Neb. 419 [1] The State, at oral argument, backed away from its asser- tion in its brief that the district court committed plain error.

2023In its opinion, the Court of Appeals in Johnson acknowl- edged precedent of this court which “suggest[ed] a procedural default in postconviction proceedings when the issue of com- petency to stand trial was not raised on direct appeal.” 4 Neb.

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 5 [2] Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial coun- sel can be determined on direct appeal presents a question of law, which turns upon the sufficiency of the record to address the claim without an evidentiary hearing or whether the claim rests solely on the interpretation of a statute or constitutional requirement. 6 5 State v. Magallanes, 284 Neb. 871 , 824 N.W.2d 696 (2012). 6 State v. Weathers, 304 Neb. 402 , 935 N.W.2d 185 (2019). - 659 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310

2022State v. Williams, 276 Neb. 716 , 757 N.W.2d 187 (2008).

2022State v. Williams, 276 Neb. 716 , 757 N.W.2d 187 (2008).

2022State v. Childs, 309 Neb. 427 , 960 N.W.2d 585 (2021).

2022State v. Childs, 309 Neb. 427 , 960 N.W.2d 585 (2021).

2022STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Consideration of plain error occurs at the discretion of an appellate court. 5 [2] Whether a claim of ineffective assistance of trial coun- sel can be determined on direct appeal presents a question of law, which turns upon the sufficiency of the record to address the claim without an evidentiary hearing or whether the claim rests solely on the interpretation of a statute or constitutional requirement. 6 5 State v. Magallanes, 284 Neb. 871 , 824 N.W.2d 696 (2012). 6 State v. Weathers, 304 Neb. 402 , 935 N.W.2d 185 (2019). - 659 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 310

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2020STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] In a filiation proceeding, questions concerning child custody determinations are reviewed on appeal de novo on the record to determine whether there has been an abuse of discre- tion by the trial court, whose judgment will be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. 2 [2,3] Statutory interpretation presents a question of law. 3 When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclu- sion reached by the trial court. 4 ANALYSIS Acknowledgment of Paternity Before reaching the assigned errors, we fir

2016Plain error exists where there is error, plainly evident from the record but not complained of at trial, which prejudicially affects a substantial right of a litigant and is of such a nature - 191 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 295 Nebraska R eports STATE v. BETANCOURT-GARCIA Cite as 295 Neb. 170 that to leave it uncorrected would cause a miscarriage of jus- tice or result in damage to the integrity, reputation, and fair- ness of the judicial process.

2001See, State v. Orduna, 250 Neb. 602 , 550 N.W.2d 356 (1996); State v. Ristau, 245 Neb. 52 , 511 N.W.2d 83 (1994); State v. Huffman, 222 Neb. 512 , 385 N.W.2d 85 (1986).

2001See, State v. Orduna, 250 Neb. 602 , 550 N.W.2d 356 (1996); State v. Ristau, 245 Neb. 52 , 511 N.W.2d 83 (1994); State v. Huffman, 222 Neb. 512 , 385 N.W.2d 85 (1986).

2001See, State v. Orduna, 250 Neb. 602 , 550 N.W.2d 356 (1996); State v. Ristau, 245 Neb. 52 , 511 N.W.2d 83 (1994); State v. Huffman, 222 Neb. 512 , 385 N.W.2d 85 (1986).

2001See, State v. Orduna, 250 Neb. 602 , 550 N.W.2d 356 (1996); State v. Ristau, 245 Neb. 52 , 511 N.W.2d 83 (1994); State v. Huffman, 222 Neb. 512 , 385 N.W.2d 85 (1986).

1997The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the cause for a new trial, concluding that the district court committed plain error in failing to exclude the chemical test results because the postarrest advisement form failed to conform to this court’s decision in Smith v. State, 248 Neb. 360 , 535 N.W.2d 694 (1995).

1997The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict and remanded the cause for a new trial, concluding that the district court committed plain error in failing to exclude the chemical test results because the postarrest advisement form failed to conform to this court’s decision in Smith v. State, 248 Neb. 360 , 535 N.W.2d 694 (1995).