State v. Cerros
| Citation | 312 Neb. 230 |
| Decision Date | 12 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-527 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Joel A. Cerros, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Rules of Evidence. In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules and judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility.
2. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion.
3. Evidence: Appeal and Error. A trial court has the discretion to determine the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and such determinations will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of that discretion.
4. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial 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 standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, 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, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction.
5. Jury Instructions. Whether jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law.
6. Judgments: Appeal and Error. On a question of law, an appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the court below.
7. Witnesses: Trial. A witness may not give an opinion as to a defendant's guilt or how the case should be decided, but, rather, must leave the conclusions to be drawn by the trier of fact because such opinions are not helpful.
8. Convictions: Intent. Reckless driving is not a mere traffic infraction or public welfare offense; it requires the necessary mens rea to be the unlawful act to support a conviction for manslaughter.
9. Lesser-Included Offenses: Jury Instructions: Evidence. A court must instruct on a lesser-included offense if (1) the elements of the lesser offense for which an instruction is requested are such that one cannot commit the greater offense without simultaneously committing the lesser offense and (2) the evidence produces a rational basis for acquitting the defendant of the greater offense and convicting the defendant of the lesser offense.
10. Homicide: Lesser-Included Offenses: Jury Instructions. Where murder is charged, a court is required to instruct on lesser degrees of homicide where appropriate, but in other circumstances, a court must instruct on a lesser-included offense only if requested to do so, and failure to instruct on a lesser-included offense cannot be considered error if the defendant did not request the instruction.
Appeal from the District Court for Butler County: Robert R. Steinke, Judge. Affirmed.
Robert W. Kortus, of Nebraska Commission on Public Advocacy, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
Joel A. Cerros appeals his conviction in the district court for Butler County for manslaughter, with reckless driving as the predicate unlawful act. Cerros claims that the district court erred when it allowed a law enforcement officer to testify that driving on the wrong side of the road could be a sign of reckless driving. Cerros also claims that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for manslaughter and, for the first time on appeal, claims that the district court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on careless driving as a lesser-included offense. We affirm Cerros' conviction.
On June 20, 2020, Cerros was involved in a traffic accident on U.S Highway 81 south of Columbus, Nebraska. The car driven by Cerros was traveling south and was heading in the wrong direction (wrong lane) when it collided with a motorcycle traveling north. The motorcyclist died as a result of injuries sustained in the collision.
The State theorized that Cerros was under the influence of marijuana at the time of the accident. The State therefore charged Cerros with (1) motor vehicle homicide with driving under the influence (DUI) as the predicate violation of law, (2) DUI, (3) manslaughter with reckless driving as the predicate unlawful act, and (4) possession of drug paraphernalia. Cerros pled no contest to the possession charge and went to trial by jury on the remaining counts. The jury acquitted Cerros of DUI and motor vehicle homicide but found him guilty of manslaughter. Given the homicide based on DUI acquittal, our analysis on appeal is focused on manslaughter.
The evidence at trial included testimony by witnesses, including other motorists who arrived at the scene shortly after the accident as well as rescue and law enforcement personnel who later arrived at the scene. Relevant to the charge of manslaughter based on reckless driving, various witnesses testified that Cerros' car was in the wrong lane. For example, one rescue worker testified that the car "was facing south, but was in the northbound lane ... in the shoulder area" and that the "motorcycle was directly in front of the vehicle.''
The State presented testimony by an accident reconstructionist who testified regarding his investigation of the accident in this case. He stated in his report that "Cerros was driving southbound on Highway 81," that "Cerros crossed into the northbound lanes of travel," and that the northbound motorcycle collided with the southbound vehicle driven by Cerros. He concluded that the "actions of . . . Cerros resulted in the death" of the motorcyclist.
The State also elicited testimony regarding the DUI and motor vehicle homicide charges, including observations of witnesses regarding Cerros' condition shortly after the accident. Among the witnesses the State questioned in this regard was Devin Betzen, a sheriff's deputy who was dispatched to the scene of the accident. During initial general questioning of Betzen regarding his experience in law enforcement, the State asked Betzen, "[W]hat do you look for in determining signs of impairment, just in general cases?" Betzen responded by listing physical signs such as bloodshot, watery eyes, slurred speech, slow deliberate movement, and poor finger-to-thumb dexterity. The State then asked, "What about driving habits?" Betzen responded by listing actions such as speeding, driving on the shoulder of the road, and crossing centerlines. The State suggested, "Driving the wrong way . . . down a highway?" and Betzen responded in the affirmative.
During cross-examination of Betzen, Cerros elicited testimony related to his defense theory that at the time of the collision, he had crossed the centerline because he was preparing to turn left onto a county road that was a short distance ahead. Betzen testified that Cerros' parents' house was approximately 4 miles from the site of the accident and that in order to go to their house, Cerros would have had to have turned left onto a county road that was approximately 15 to 20 feet south past the site of the collision. At the end of cross-examination, Betzen agreed that in the report he prepared after his investigation, he did not state that Cerros had shown any signs of impairment or that he had "found any signs of impairment by his driving."
The State then began its redirect of Betzen with this exchange: Cerros objected on the basis that the State's question The court overruled Cerros' objection, and it stated, The State then continued with a different line of questioning.
Other evidence presented by the State included testimony by emergency personnel that the motorcyclist had died at the scene of the accident. The State also presented testimony by the pathologist who conducted the autopsy on the motorcyclist. The pathologist testified that the motorcyclist had sustained various injuries, including injuries to the head, chest, and abdomen. The pathologist opined that the cause of death was blunt force trauma to the head, chest, and abdomen and that such injuries were consistent with the motorcycle having collided with the automobile.
Cerros moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State's evidence. The district court overruled the motion and made certain remarks with regard to the manslaughter charge. The court noted that manslaughter was charged with reckless driving as the predicate unlawful act. The court stated that reckless driving was a misdemeanor offense and not a traffic infraction or a public welfare offense. The court stated that evidence offered by the State showed that Cerros "was operating his motor vehicle over a period of time and through a term of space completely in the wrong lane of a major U.S highway," and the court determined that "[s]uch evidence viewed most favorably to the State would establish that the unlawful act of reckless driving was done voluntarily and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Betancur
... ... conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial ... error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and ... construed most favorably to the State, is sufficient to ... support the conviction. State v. Cerros , 312 Neb ... 230, 978 N.W.2d 162 (2022) ... Whether ... jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a ... question of law. Id ... On a question of law, an ... appellate court is obligated to reach a conclusion ... independent of ... ...