residual hearsay exception in Nebraska

2021State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448 , 755 N.W.2d 57 (2008). [2] Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstan- tial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the stan- dard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appel- late court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such mat- ters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudic

2009Id. [3,4] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, we review for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court's hearsay ruling and review de novo the court's ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection.

2019State v. Schwaderer , 296 Neb. 932 , 898 N.W.2d 318 (2017). *857 *364 (b) Additional Background During Gratz' testimony at trial, he indicated that he had received information regarding his investigation of the stolen motorcycle from a confidential informant.

2019State v. Schwaderer , 296 Neb. 932 , 898 N.W.2d 318 (2017). *857 *364 (b) Additional Background During Gratz' testimony at trial, he indicated that he had received information regarding his investigation of the stolen motorcycle from a confidential informant.

2017STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, we will review for clear error the factual findings underpin- ning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and review de novo the court’s ultimate determination whether the court admitted evi- dence over a hearsay objection or excluded evidence on hear- say grounds.1 [2] Whether a statement was both taken and given in con- templation of medical diagnosis or treatment is a factual find- ing made by the trial court in determining the admissibility of the evidence under rule 803(3).2 [3] An ineffective assistance of counsel cl

2017Id. [5] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination whether the court admitted evidence over a hearsay objection or excluded evidence on - 54 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 296 Nebraska R eports STATE v. McCURRY Cite as 296 Neb. 40 hearsay grounds.

1996While we have said that the residual hearsay exception is to be used rarely and only in exceptional circumstances, State v. Plant, 236 Neb. 317 , 461 N.W.2d 253 (1990), we have also ruled that where the declarant is dead, the specific exceptions of rule 804(2)(e) are applicable in determining the existence of equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

1996While we have said that the residual hearsay exception is to be used rarely and only in exceptional circumstances, State v. Plant, 236 Neb. 317 , 461 N.W.2d 253 (1990), we have also ruled that where the declarant is dead, the specific exceptions of rule 804(2)(e) are applicable in determining the existence of equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness.

2023Id.

2022Id. [7] Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether a sentencing court abused its discretion - 75 - Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets 31 Nebraska Appellate Reports STATE v. ROEBUCK Cite as 31 Neb.

2021Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156 , 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019).

2020Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 8 Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 , 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017). 9 Id. 10 Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156 , 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019). 11 Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 , 929 N.W.2d 40 (2019). 12 Jacobs Engr.

2021Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156 , 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019).

2020Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 8 Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 , 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017). 9 Id. 10 Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156 , 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019). 11 Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 , 929 N.W.2d 40 (2019). 12 Jacobs Engr.

2017State v. Garner, 260 Neb. 41 , 614 N.W.2d 319 (2000).

2017State v. Garner, 260 Neb. 41 , 614 N.W.2d 319 (2000).

1996State v. Jacob, 242 Neb. 176 , 494 N.W.2d 109 (1993); State v. Beam, 206 Neb. 248 , 292 N.W.2d 302 (1980).

1996State v. Jacob, 242 Neb. 176 , 494 N.W.2d 109 (1993); State v. Beam, 206 Neb. 248 , 292 N.W.2d 302 (1980).

2025RAMOS Cite as 319 Neb. 511 Considering the factors above, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to allow Boppre’s statements to Trantham into evidence pursuant to the residual hearsay exception.

2025RAMOS Cite as 319 Neb. 511 leading questions, he spent his second interview complaining about the prison, and he spoke little about anything relevant to Ramos’ case. (b) Assignments of Error Ramos assigns that the district court erred in (1) failing to order DCS to transport witnesses material to his defense and (2) denying his request to present those witnesses’ statements through the residual hearsay exception. (c) Standard of Review [17] Because of the factors a trial court must weigh in deciding whether to admit evidence under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court applies an a

2023O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 , 903 N.W.2d 432 (2017).

2020O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 , 903 N.W.2d 432 (2017). [2] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual find- ings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds.

2022Baker-Heser v. State, 309 Neb. 979 , 963 N.W.2d 59 (2021).

2021An appellate court reviews the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and drawing all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor. 12 [2] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds. 13 [3] A district court’s grant of a motion to dismiss on the pleadings is r

2022State v. Jedlicka, 297 Neb. 276 , 900 N.W.2d 454 (2017).

2017STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, we will review for clear error the factual findings underpin- ning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and review de novo the court’s ultimate determination whether the court admitted evi- dence over a hearsay objection or excluded evidence on hear- say grounds.1 [2] Whether a statement was both taken and given in con- templation of medical diagnosis or treatment is a factual find- ing made by the trial court in determining the admissibility of the evidence under rule 803(3).2 [3] An ineffective assistance of counsel cl

2022Cite as 310 Neb. 896 6 .

2022Cite as 310 Neb. 896 6 .

2020Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 8 Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 , 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017). 9 Id. 10 Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156 , 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019). 11 Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 , 929 N.W.2d 40 (2019). 12 Jacobs Engr.

2020Group v. ConAgra Foods, 301 Neb. 38 , 917 N.W.2d 435 (2018). 8 Armstrong v. Clarkson College, 297 Neb. 595 , 901 N.W.2d 1 (2017). 9 Id. 10 Pantano v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, 303 Neb. 156 , 927 N.W.2d 357 (2019). 11 Weyh v. Gottsch, 303 Neb. 280 , 929 N.W.2d 40 (2019). 12 Jacobs Engr.

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of - 709 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FERGUSON Cite as 301 Neb. 697 review.1 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination.2 [2] Apart from ruli

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of - 709 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FERGUSON Cite as 301 Neb. 697 review.1 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination.2 [2] Apart from ruli

2018STANDARD OF REVIEW [1] When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of - 709 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 301 Nebraska R eports STATE v. FERGUSON Cite as 301 Neb. 697 review.1 Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial court’s findings for clear error, but whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial court’s determination.2 [2] Apart from ruli

2017The relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.2 1 State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 , 891 N.W.2d 663 (2017). 2 State v. Mendez-Osorio, 297 Neb. 520 , 900 N.W.2d 776 (2017). - 193 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 298 Nebraska R eports STATE v. MORA Cite as 298 Neb. 185 [3] An appellate court reviews criminal sentences for abuse of discretion, which occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon rea

2017Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834 , 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

2016Arens v. NEBCO, Inc., 291 Neb. 834 , 870 N.W.2d 1 (2015).

2017State v. Trice, 292 Neb. 482 , 874 N.W.2d 286 (2016). [6] The determination of whether procedures afforded an individual comport with constitutional requirements for proce- dural due process presents a question of law.

2016STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] For purposes of hearsay analysis, it is within the discretion of the trial court to determine whether the unavail- ability of a witness has been shown.4 Where the rules of evidence commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, the admissibility of evidence is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.5 A judicial abuse of dis- cretion exists only when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a sub­ stantial right and denying a just result in matters submitted for disposition.6 [3] Apart f

2015Id.

2013State v. Epp, 278 Neb. 683 , 773 N.W.2d 356 (2009).

2004See, In re Estate of Jeffrey B., ante p. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004); In re Interest of S.S.L., 219 Neb. 911 , 367 N.W.2d 710 (1985).

2004See, In re Estate of Jeffrey B., ante p. 761, 688 N.W.2d 135 (2004); In re Interest of S.S.L., 219 Neb. 911 , 367 N.W.2d 710 (1985).

2026State v. Price, 320 Neb. 1 , 26 N.W.3d 70 (2025). [3] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds.

2026State v. Price, 320 Neb. 1, 26 N.W.3d 70 (2025). [3] Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay ruling and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evidence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds.

2026State v. Hagens, 320 Neb. 65 , 26 N.W.3d 174 (2025).

2026State v. Hagens, 320 Neb. 65, 26 N.W.3d 174 (2025).

2025Id. [8,9] When an attorney fee is authorized by statute or a uniform practice and procedure, the amount of the fee is addressed to the discretion of the trial court.

2025Apart from rulings under the residual hearsay exception, an appellate court reviews for - 269 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 318 Nebraska Reports IN RE MASEK FAMILY TRUST Cite as 318 Neb. 268 clear error the factual findings underpinning a trial court’s hearsay rul- ing and reviews de novo the court’s ultimate determination to admit evi- dence over a hearsay objection or exclude evidence on hearsay grounds. 8.