State v. Pope

12 Citing cases

  1. State v. Gaudreault

    30 Neb. App. 501 (Neb. Ct. App. 2022)

    Whether a jury instruction is correct is a question of law, regarding which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the trial court. State v. Pope , 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). When examining a sufficiency of the evidence claim, 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.

  2. State v. Johnson

    308 Neb. 331 (Neb. 2021)   Cited 13 times

    A district court's conclusion whether an identification is consistent with due process is reviewed de novo, but the court's findings of historical fact are reviewed for clear error. State v. Pope , 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). The verdict of the finder of fact on the issue of insanity will not be disturbed unless there is insufficient evidence to support such a finding.

  3. State v. Simpson

    No. A-19-923 (Neb. Ct. App. Nov. 3, 2020)   Cited 1 times

    A district court's conclusion whether an identification is consistent with due process is reviewed de novo, but the court's findings of historical fact are reviewed for clear error. State v. Pope, 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility.

  4. State v. Harris

    No. A-19-973 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 20, 2020)   Cited 2 times

    Whether a jury instruction is correct is a question of law, regarding which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the trial court. State v. Pope, 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). The standard of review for the denial of a motion for new trial is whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the motion.

  5. State v. Caporale

    No. A-20-046 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 13, 2020)

    A district court's conclusion whether an identification is consistent with due process is reviewed de novo, but the court's findings of historical fact are viewed for clear error. State v. Pope, 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). A trial court's determination of the admissibility of physical evidence will not ordinarily be overturned except for an abuse of discretion.

  6. State v. Elias

    314 Neb. 494 (Neb. 2023)   Cited 7 times
    Describing cell site location information evidence

    State v. Castillas , 285 Neb. 174, 182, 826 N.W.2d 255, 263 (2013), disapproved on other grounds,State v. Lantz , 290 Neb. 757, 861 N.W.2d 728 (2015). See, also, State v. Pope , 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). But even if Elias had preserved that objection, we would find no error in the admission of the challenged testimony.

  7. State v. Matteson

    313 Neb. 435 (Neb. 2023)   Cited 16 times

    There is no prejudicial error warranting reversal if the jury instructions, read together and taken as a whole, correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the evidence. See State v. Pope , 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020). If there is an applicable instruction in the Nebraska Jury Instructions, the court should usually give this instruction to the jury in a criminal case.

  8. State v. Jennings

    312 Neb. 1020 (Neb. 2022)   Cited 12 times

    All the jury instructions must be read together, and if, taken as a whole, they correctly state the law, are not misleading, and adequately cover the issues supported by the pleadings and the evidence, there is no prejudicial error necessitating reversal.State v. Pope , 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020).

  9. State v. Greer

    312 Neb. 351 (Neb. 2022)   Cited 23 times

    Whether a jury instruction is correct is a question of law, regarding which an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the trial court.State v. Pope , 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020).

  10. State v. Bartels

    No. A-23-716 (Neb. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2024)

    Furthermore, the court's grant of a continuing objection to testimony of Schneider and the phlebotomist did not extend to the forensic scientist's testimony. See State v. Pope, 305 Neb. 912, 943 N.W.2d 294 (2020) (continuing objections are not applicable to testimony given by different witness when no objection is made to that witness). Bartels, therefore, failed to preserve any error regarding the admission of the blood test results.