second step analysis in Nebraska

2018In regard to each piece of 36 State v. Ellis, supra note 4, 281 Neb. at 586, 799 N.W.2d at 285. 37 Id. at 587, 799 N.W.2d at 286. 38 Id. at 587-88, 799 N.W.2d at 286. - 692 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. HILL Cite as 298 Neb. 675 DNA-tested evidence, Helligso stated whether Hill could “be excluded as a possible contributor” based on the swabs of evi- dence and the buccal swab from Hill.39 Helligso then utilized the second step of the test in Ellis, a “frequency analysis,” to determine the probability of the DNA match to another individual.

2016State v. Thorpe, 280 Neb. 11 , 783 N.W.2d 749 (2010).

2016State v. Thorpe, 280 Neb. 11 , 783 N.W.2d 749 (2010).

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg

2016We now turn to the second step of the analysis. [10-13] The second step of the analysis requires that when a statute involves an element of judgment, the judgment must be of the kind that the discretionary function exception was 16 § 71-919(2)(a). 17 Christiansen v. County of Douglas, 288 Neb. 564 , 849 N.W.2d 493 (2014). - 23 - Nebraska A dvance Sheets 293 Nebraska R eports HOLLOWAY v. STATE Cite as 293 Neb. 12 designed to shield.

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg

2016Best Interests Corey asserts that if the second step of the analysis in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 , 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), is applied, the court would find that it is not in the children’s best interests to leave the State of Nebraska.

2016Best Interests Corey asserts that if the second step of the analysis in Farnsworth v. Farnsworth, 257 Neb. 242 , 597 N.W.2d 592 (1999), is applied, the court would find that it is not in the children’s best interests to leave the State of Nebraska.

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg

2016It is incumbent upon an appellant to supply a record which supports his or her appeal.45 Absent such a record, as a general rule, the decision of the lower court as to those errors is to be affirmed.46 On this record, our ability to thoroughly review this step is thus somewhat restricted.47 We note, however, that the Kansas Supreme Court recently attempted to undertake a similar analysis and generally con- cluded there is no national consensus either for or against imposing mandatory lifetime community supervision on juve- nile sex offenders sentenced in criminal court.48 (ii) Independent Judg