An appellate court has an obligation to reach a conclusion independent of that of the trial court on questions of law. State v. Roche, Inc., 246 Neb. 568, 520 N.W.2d 539 (1994); State v. Martinez, ante p. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995). In determining the correctness of a trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress, an appellate court will uphold the decision of the trial court unless the court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous.

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed a lower court decision that itself cited Fawcett for the premise that "courts may tailor double jeopardy protection to reflect the time period involved in the charge in the earlier prosecution." State v. Martinez, 4 Neb.App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406, 414–15 (1995) (citing State v. Fawcett, 145 Wis. 2d 244, 255, 426 N.W.2d 91 (Ct. App. 1988) ). The State may allege a timeframe for its allegations of sexual assault of a child in its first prosecution; as a

See, e.g., Baldonado, 955 P.2d at 220; Erickson v. People, 951 P.2d 919, 925 (Colo. 1998); State v. Mulkey, 560 A.2d 24, 30 (Md. 1989); State v. Martinez, 541 N.W.2d 406, 414 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995), aff'd, 550 N.W.2d 655, 658-59 (Neb. 1996); In re K.A.W., 515 A.2d 1217, 1222-23 (N.J. 1986); People v. Morris, 461 N.E.2d 1256, 1260-61 (N.Y. 1984); State v. Fawcett, 426 N.W.2d 91, 94-95 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). Such an approach is consistent with our decision in Cunningham, where we held that although sex abuse cases present special challenges, "the state should, whenever possible, allege the exact date on which it believes a crime was committed, or as closely thereto as possible."

See, e.g., Baldonado, 955 P.2d at 220; Erickson v. People, 951 P.2d 919, 925 (Colo. 1998); State v. Mulkey, 560 A.2d 24, 30 (Md. 1989); State v. Martinez, 541 N.W.2d 406, 414 (Neb. Ct. App. 1995), aff'd, 550 N.W.2d 655, 658-59 (Neb. 1996); In re K.A.W., 515 A.2d 1217, 1222-23 (N.J. 1986); People v. Morris, 461 N.E.2d 1256, 1260-61 (N.Y. 1984); State v. Fawcett, 426 N.W.2d 91, 94-95 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). Such an approach is consistent with our decision in Cunningham, where we held that although sex abuse cases present special challenges, "the state should, whenever possible, allege the exact date on which it believes a crime was committed, or as closely thereto as possible."

WHITE, C.J. We agreed to the State's petition for further review to resolve the disagreement between two decisions of the Nebraska Court of Appeals. At issue are the Court of Appeals' decisions in State v. Martinez, 4 Neb. App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995), and State v. Quick, 1 Neb. App. 756, 511 N.W.2d 168 (1993). In the information against Martinez, it was alleged that a first degree sexual assault against Matthew P. occurred "between July 1, 1991 and June 18, 1994."

However, such reliance necessarily carries the risk that another panel of the Court of Appeals may reach a different conclusion. For example, in State v. Martinez, 4 Neb. App. 192, 200, 541 N.W.2d 406, 412 (1995), one panel wrote of another panel's interpretation of a decision of this court, "We do not believe that State v. Piskorski, 218 Neb. 543, 357 N.W.2d 206 (1984), supports the . . . proposition which our respected colleagues set forth in State v. Quick, [ 1 Neb. App. 756, 511 N.W.2d 168 (1993)]," and read Piskorski differently than did the Quick panel. Additionally, such reliance carries the risk that this court may find that the Court of Appeals misapprehended the law.

Thus, we view Methe as allowing use of a prior conviction, including the allegations of the indictment, information, or complaint leading thereto. See State v. Martinez, 4 Neb. App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995) (equating criminal "pleading" to charging document), aff'd 250 Neb. 597, 550 N.W.2d 655 (1996). We determine that rule 410, as explained by Methe, authorized the receipt in evidence of the record of Verle's prior conviction, which record included the amended information (exhibit 1), the journal entry memorializing the acceptance of the no contest plea (exhibit 3), and the journal entry upon the judgment imposing sentence (exhibit 4).

A trial court has the discretion to order depositions in criminal cases if the information may affect the outcome of the trial. State v. Martinez, 4 Neb. App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995). Mere designation of a witness by the State does not establish materiality or relevance of the witness' testimony or its helpfulness in preparation of a criminal case for trial.

An information first questioned on appeal must be held sufficient unless it is so defective that by no construction can it be said to charge the offense of which the accused was convicted. State v. Lingle, 209 Neb. 492, 308 N.W.2d 531 (1981); State v. Martinez, 4 Neb. App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995). A defendant should not be allowed to await the outcome of a trial before contesting deficiencies in charging documents which could easily have been corrected if they had been pointed out before trial.

[9-11] Ordinarily, for error to be predicated on the admission of evidence, there must be a timely objection made at trial. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-103 (Reissue 1995); State v. Martinez, 4 Neb. App. 192, 541 N.W.2d 406 (1995), aff'd 250 Neb. 597, 550 N.W.2d 655 (1996). It is undisputed that no objection was made to the admission of the videotape by trial counsel.