admission hearing in Nebraska

2026In State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. 96 , 784 N.W.2d 873 (2010), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed a similar argument wherein the defendant argued that the field sobriety tests failed to establish that he was impaired and that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him because the officer did not perform the test in compliance with the requirements sets forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration manual.

2026In State v. Prescott, 280 Neb. 96 , 784 N.W.2d 873 (2010), the Nebraska Supreme Court addressed a similar argument wherein the defendant argued that the field sobriety tests failed to establish that he was impaired and that the officer lacked probable cause to arrest him because the officer did not perform the test in compliance with the requirements sets forth in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration manual.

2023Mabior is correct that rule 404(3) requires the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the crime, wrong, or act in order for evidence of another crime, wrong, 18 State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 , 883 N.W.2d 652 (2016). 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 575 , 883 N.W.2d at 670 . 22 Burries, supra note 15 . 23 Brief for appellee at 24. - 948 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2023Mabior is correct that rule 404(3) requires the prosecution to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the accused committed the crime, wrong, or act in order for evidence of another crime, wrong, 18 State v. Parnell, 294 Neb. 551 , 883 N.W.2d 652 (2016). 19 Id. 20 Id. 21 Id. at 575 , 883 N.W.2d at 670 . 22 Burries, supra note 15 . 23 Brief for appellee at 24. - 948 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 314 Nebraska Reports STATE V.

2015The two prongs of this test may be addressed in either order, and the entire ineffectiveness analysis should be viewed with a strong presumption that counsel’s actions were reasonable.37 [20-23] Prejudice caused by counsel’s deficiency is shown when there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.38 A reasonable probability is “a probability suf- ficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”39 This court follows the approach to the prejudice inquiry outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland: “In ma

2015The two prongs of this test may be addressed in either order, and the entire ineffectiveness analysis should be viewed with a strong presumption that counsel’s actions were reasonable.37 [20-23] Prejudice caused by counsel’s deficiency is shown when there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different.38 A reasonable probability is “a probability suf- ficient to undermine confidence in the outcome.”39 This court follows the approach to the prejudice inquiry outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Strickland: “In ma

1987First, he contends the test result was improperly admitted because the necessary foundation for the admission of that test result as set forth in State v. Gerber, 206 Neb. 75 , 291 N.W.2d 403 (1980), the documentary evidence previously discussed, was improperly admitted.

1987First, he contends the test result was improperly admitted because the necessary foundation for the admission of that test result as set forth in State v. Gerber, 206 Neb. 75 , 291 N.W.2d 403 (1980), the documentary evidence previously discussed, was improperly admitted.

1986To the extent that State v. Blankenbaker, 197 Neb. 344 , 248 N.W.2d 773 (1977), suggests that an admission of violation of probation is a guilty plea, that holding is hereby disapproved.

1986To the extent that State v. Blankenbaker, 197 Neb. 344 , 248 N.W.2d 773 (1977), suggests that an admission of violation of probation is a guilty plea, that holding is hereby disapproved.

1936While the judicial department cannot be circumscribed or restricted in the performance of these duties, appropriate and essential assistance in discharging them may be afforded by the enactment of statutes.” In In re Lavine, 2 Cal. (2d) 324, 41 Pac. (2d) 161 , it was said (p. 328) : “An attorney is an officer of the court and whether a person shall be admitted is a judicial, and not a legislative, question.