State of Nebraska, appellee, Nlco M. Wofford, appellant.
Trial: Joinder: Appeal and Error.
court's ruling on a motion for consolidation of
prosecutions properly joinable will not be disturbed on
appeal absent an abuse of discretion.
Juries: Discrimination: Prosecuting
and Error. An appellate court reviews de novo the
facial validity of an attorney's race-neutral explanation
for using a peremptory challenge as a question of law. It
reviews for clear error a trial court's factual
determination regarding whether a prosecutor's
race-neutral explanation is persuasive and whether the
prosecutor's use of a peremptory challenge was
Trial: Juries: Evidence: Appeal and Error.
court's decision to allow a jury during deliberations to
rehear or review nontestimonial evidence is reviewed by an
appellate court for an abuse of discretion.
Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error.
reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of the
evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct,
circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the
same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the
evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh
the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. The
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.
Sentences: Appeal and Error.
appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within
the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the
Judges: Words and Phrases.
judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or
rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly [298
Neb. 413] depriving a litigant of a substantial right and
denying just results in matters submitted for disposition.
Trial: Joinder: Indictments and Informations.
propriety of a joint trial involves two questions: whether
the consolidation is proper because the defendants could have
been joined in the same indictment or information, and
whether there was a right to severance because the defendants
or the State would be prejudiced by an otherwise proper
consolidation of the prosecutions for trial.
Trial: Joinder: Proof: Appeal and Error.
burden is on the party challenging a joint trial to
demonstrate how and in what manner he or she was prejudiced.
is proper if the offenses are part of a factually related
transaction or series of events in which both of the
Trial: Joinder: Evidence.
defendant is not considered prejudiced by a joinder where the
evidence relating to both defendants would be admissible in a
trial of either defendant separately.
Juries: Prosecuting Attorneys: Equal Protection.
prosecutor is ordinarily entitled to exercise permitted
peremptory challenges for any reason at all, if that reason
is related to his or her view concerning the outcome of the
case. However, the U.S. Supreme Court in Batson v.
Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 1712, 90 L.Ed.2d 69
(1986), held that the Equal Protection Clause forbids the
prosecutor to challenge jurors solely because of their race.
Juries: Discrimination: Prosecuting Attorneys:
whether a prosecutor impermissibly struck a prospective juror
based on race is a three-step process. In this three-step
process, the ultimate burden of persuasion regarding racial
motivation rests with, and never shifts from, the opponent of
the strike. First, a defendant must make a prima facie
showing that the prosecutor exercised a peremptory challenge
because of race. Second, assuming the defendant made such a
showing, the prosecutor must offer a race-neutral basis for
striking the juror. And third, the trial court must determine
whether the defendant has carried his or her burden of
proving purposeful discrimination.
Juries: Discrimination: Prosecuting Attorneys.
a prosecutor's reasons for using a peremptory challenge
are race neutral is a question of law.
___: ___: ___. In determining whether a
prosecutor's explanation for using a peremptory challenge
is race neutral, a court is not required to reject the
explanation because it is not persuasive, or even plausible;
it is sufficient if the reason is not inherently
discriminatory. Only inherently discriminatory explanations
are facially invalid.
Neb. 414] 15. Appeal and
appellate court does not consider errors which are argued but
not assigned. 16. Trial: Juries: Evidence. A
trial court does not have discretion to submit testimonial
materials to the jury for unsupervised review, but the trial
court has broad discretion to submit to the jury
nontestimonial exhibits, in particular, those constituting
substantive evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Sentences: Appeal and Error.
sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on
appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine
whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in
considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any
applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be
imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to consider the
defendant's (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and
experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past
criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6)
motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of ...