inextricably intertwined exception in Nebraska

14 Nebraska opinions name it 2 courts 2013–2026 5 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Nebraska courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (2)

Case	Followed	Cited
State v. Burriesgreen neb · 2017 · cited in 6 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2017–2022 2 sentences 2022State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 , 900 N.W.2d 483 (2017). 2017We reasoned that evidence of the threat was necessary to present a coherent pic- ture of the crimes because it showed that he had acted upon a recent threat to the victim. [35] Under this precedent, evidence of a murder defend ant’s previous threat to the victim or statement to others showing a desire to harm or kill the victim are facts that are inextricably intertwined with the charged murder if the defendant made the threat or statement fairly close in time to the murder.65 Accordingly, the inextricably intertwined exception applied to Beck’s testimony that she overheard threats from Burr	3	6
State v. Robinsongreen neb · 2006 · cited in 1 Nebraska opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013 2 sentences 2013See, also, State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698 , 715 N.W.2d 531 (2006); State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb. 778 , 688 N.W.2d 586 (2004). 2013See, also, State v. Robinson, 271 Neb. 698 , 715 N.W.2d 531 (2006); State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb. 778 , 688 N.W.2d 586 (2004).	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Nebraska. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (16)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Lee green neb · 2019 2 sentences 2023STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] An appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under Rule 404(2) or the applicability of the inextricably intertwined doctrine. 1 [2,3] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by such rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 2 Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary ques- tion at issue to the discretion of the trial court, 2019App. 871 , 835 N.W.2d 79 (2013). 11 See id. 12 See id. - 272 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LEE Cite as 304 Neb. 252 Our precedent shows that we have upheld the admission of evidence under the inextricably intertwined rule when the defendant’s other bad acts showed his pattern of sexually abus- ing a child or exposing the child to sexually explicit material.13 For example, in State v. Baker,14 we held that the inextricably intertwined exception applied where the defendant’s other bad acts showed his pattern of sexually abusing the victim.	4	2019–2024
State v. Wisinski green neb · 2004 2 sentences 2015Our juris- prudence initially adopted a broad concept of this class of evidence.11 Although in other cases we have partially backed away from the inextricably intertwined exception and instead applied a broader notion of rule 404, the exception is still viable.12 Recently, in State v. Ash,13 we articulated our nar- rowed concept of the exception, stating that inextricably inter- twined evidence “includes evidence that forms part of the factual setting of the crime, or evidence that is so blended or connected to the charged crime that proof of the charged crime 11 See State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb 2015Our juris- prudence initially adopted a broad concept of this class of evidence.11 Although in other cases we have partially backed away from the inextricably intertwined exception and instead applied a broader notion of rule 404, the exception is still viable.12 Recently, in State v. Ash,13 we articulated our nar- rowed concept of the exception, stating that inextricably inter- twined evidence “includes evidence that forms part of the factual setting of the crime, or evidence that is so blended or connected to the charged crime that proof of the charged crime 11 See State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb	2	2013–2015
State v. Logan green neb · 2025 1 sentence 2026State v. Logan, 320 Neb. 554 , 28 N.W.3d 510 (2025).	1	2026–2026
State v. Case green neb · 2020 1 sentence 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court will review for abuse of discre- tion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 3 [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s deci	1	2025–2025
State v. Trail green neb · 2022 1 sentence 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court will review for abuse of discre- tion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 3 [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s deci	1	2025–2025
State v. Boswell green neb · 2024 1 sentence 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court will review for abuse of discre- tion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 3 [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s deci	1	2025–2025
State v. Mabior green neb · 2023 2 sentences 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court will review for abuse of discre- tion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 3 [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s deci 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court will review for abuse of discre- tion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 3 [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s deci	1	2025–2025
State v. Lewis green neb · 2025 1 sentence 2025STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] An appellate court will review for abuse of discre- tion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 3 [3] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s deci	1	2025–2025
State v. Elias green neb · 2023 1 sentence 2023ELIAS Cite as 314 Neb. 494 [4] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup- press based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review. 4 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trig- ger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination. 5 ANALYSIS Rule 404.	1	2023–2023
Batson v. Kentucky green scotus · 1986 2 sentences 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] An appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defend ant’s other crimes or bad acts under Rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule.2 [2,3] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by such rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discre- tion a factor in determining admissibility.3 Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, 2019STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] An appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defend ant’s other crimes or bad acts under Rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule.2 [2,3] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by such rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discre- tion a factor in determining admissibility.3 Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court,	1	2019–2019
State v. Mendez-Osorio green neb · 2017 2 sentences 2019Ed. 2d 69 (1986). 2 State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 , 900 N.W.2d 483 (2017). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017). - 270 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LEE Cite as 304 Neb. 252 [5] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision.6 [6] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.7 V. 2019Ed. 2d 69 (1986). 2 State v. Burries, 297 Neb. 367 , 900 N.W.2d 483 (2017). 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017). - 270 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LEE Cite as 304 Neb. 252 [5] Whether jury instructions are correct is a question of law, which an appellate court resolves independently of the lower court’s decision.6 [6] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court.7 V.	1	2019–2019
State v. Kelly green nebctapp · 2013 2 sentences 2019App. 871 , 835 N.W.2d 79 (2013). 11 See id. 12 See id. - 272 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LEE Cite as 304 Neb. 252 Our precedent shows that we have upheld the admission of evidence under the inextricably intertwined rule when the defendant’s other bad acts showed his pattern of sexually abus- ing a child or exposing the child to sexually explicit material.13 For example, in State v. Baker,14 we held that the inextricably intertwined exception applied where the defendant’s other bad acts showed his pattern of sexually abusing the victim. 2019App. 871 , 835 N.W.2d 79 (2013). 11 See id. 12 See id. - 272 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 304 Nebraska R eports STATE v. LEE Cite as 304 Neb. 252 Our precedent shows that we have upheld the admission of evidence under the inextricably intertwined rule when the defendant’s other bad acts showed his pattern of sexually abus- ing a child or exposing the child to sexually explicit material.13 For example, in State v. Baker,14 we held that the inextricably intertwined exception applied where the defendant’s other bad acts showed his pattern of sexually abusing the victim.	1	2019–2019
State v. Salvador Rodriguez green neb · 2017 2 sentences 2018State v. Salvador Rodriguez, 296 Neb. 950 , 898 N.W.2d 333 (2017). [3,4] An appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule. 2018State v. Salvador Rodriguez, 296 Neb. 950 , 898 N.W.2d 333 (2017). [3,4] An appellate court reviews for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under rule 404(2), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to the rule.	1	2018–2018
State v. Castellanos green nebctapp · 2018 1 sentence 2018State v. Castellanos, 26 Neb.	1	2018–2018
State v. Ash green neb · 2013 2 sentences 2015Our juris- prudence initially adopted a broad concept of this class of evidence.11 Although in other cases we have partially backed away from the inextricably intertwined exception and instead applied a broader notion of rule 404, the exception is still viable.12 Recently, in State v. Ash,13 we articulated our nar- rowed concept of the exception, stating that inextricably inter- twined evidence “includes evidence that forms part of the factual setting of the crime, or evidence that is so blended or connected to the charged crime that proof of the charged crime 11 See State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb 2015Our juris- prudence initially adopted a broad concept of this class of evidence.11 Although in other cases we have partially backed away from the inextricably intertwined exception and instead applied a broader notion of rule 404, the exception is still viable.12 Recently, in State v. Ash,13 we articulated our nar- rowed concept of the exception, stating that inextricably inter- twined evidence “includes evidence that forms part of the factual setting of the crime, or evidence that is so blended or connected to the charged crime that proof of the charged crime 11 See State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb	1	2015–2015
State v. Cullen green neb · 2015 1 sentence 2015Our juris- prudence initially adopted a broad concept of this class of evidence.11 Although in other cases we have partially backed away from the inextricably intertwined exception and instead applied a broader notion of rule 404, the exception is still viable.12 Recently, in State v. Ash,13 we articulated our nar- rowed concept of the exception, stating that inextricably inter- twined evidence “includes evidence that forms part of the factual setting of the crime, or evidence that is so blended or connected to the charged crime that proof of the charged crime 11 See State v. Wisinski, 268 Neb	1	2015–2015

Statutes the citing opinions construe

NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (14) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319.01 (4) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-901 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-318 (3) NE § Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-320.01 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

NE 14 (2013–2026) IA 12 (2010–2024) NJ 4 (2011–2021) FL 3 (2017–2020) WI 2 (2006–2018) OR 2 (2016–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check