State v. Matthews
| Decision Date | 03 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. S–12–1052,S–12–1052 |
| Citation | 854 N.W.2d 576 |
| Parties | State of Nebraska, appellee, v. William W. Matthews, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Gerard A. Piccolo, Hall County Public Defender, and Matthew A. Works, Lincoln, for appellant.
Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent, Lincoln, for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack, Miller–Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.
1. Rules of Evidence.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.
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.All relevant evidence normally is admissible. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible.
4. Evidence: Words and Phrases.Relevant evidence means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.
5. Self–Defense.A determination of whether the victim was the first aggressor is an essential element of a self-defense claim.
6. Self–Defense: Evidence: Proof.Evidence of a victim's violent character is probative of the victim's violent propensities and is relevant to the proof of a self-defense claim.
7. Criminal Law: Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error.An error in admitting or excluding evidence in a criminal trial, whether of constitutional magnitude or otherwise, is prejudicial unless it can be said that the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
8. Verdicts: Juries: Appeal and Error.Harmless error review looks to the basis on which the jury actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error, a guilty verdict would surely have been rendered, but whether the actual guilty verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely unattributable to the error.
9. Self–Defense: Evidence.When character evidence is being offered to establish whether the defendant's fear was reasonable in a self-defense claim, it is being used subjectively to determine the defendant's state of mind and his beliefs
regarding the danger he was in. When character evidence is used for such a purpose, the defendant necessarily must have known of the incidents or reputation which makes up the character evidence at the time of the assault.
10. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error.Where the evidence is cumulative and there is other competent evidence to support the conviction, the improper admission or exclusion of evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
William W. Matthews was convicted of six felonies arising from a shooting involving multiple victims in Grand Island, Nebraska. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed his convictions for attempted first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony with respect to Kevin Guzman and remanded the cause for a new trial.1 We granted the State's petition for further review.
The Court of Appeals determined that Matthews' self-defense claim was prejudiced by the exclusion of evidence of Guzman's aggressive and violent character. We disagree that the exclusion of the character evidence caused Matthews prejudice. There was ample evidence before the jury to establish that Guzman was the first aggressor. Thus, the character evidence was cumulative, and its exclusion was harmless error.
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand the cause with direction that the relevant convictions and sentences be reinstated.
On April 21, 2011, a witness was driving on Eddy Street when he observed a large crowd of people near 11th and 12th Streets walking toward the center of Eddy Street from the west. The people in the crowd appeared to be arguing. The witness observed a man and woman standing on the east side of Eddy Street, near a garage and an alley. The man was waving a gun, which appeared to be pointed toward the woman. The witness went around the block to obtain a second look, and upon his return, he observed that the crowd had proceeded to the center of the street. A man from the crowd pulled out a gun, waved it, and fired shots at the man and woman. The witness described that at the time the shots were fired, the man near the garage had his gun out, but it was at his side and not pointed in any specific direction. The witness identified Matthews as the shooter at trial.
Another witness observed the altercation while sitting in a parked vehicle. The witness heard a man and woman arguing and yelling across the street. The witness heard the man say, “ ‘Bring it on ... I'm packing.’ ” She saw the man lift up his shirt and “flash” a gun. The man took the gun from his waistband and pointed it in the direction of the other side of the street. Two other individuals came running into the middle of the street, and one of the individuals started shooting. The shooter initially fired into the air, but subsequently lowered the gun to chest level and fired toward the man and woman. The witness first testified that she could not remember what the man and woman were doing when the shots were fired. She later testified that they were standing near some bushes facing the shooter. But during cross-examination, the witness admitted that she was unsure whether the man and woman had proceeded down the alley when the shots were fired. The witness identified Matthews as the shooter at trial.
Guzman, the man with the woman on the east side of Eddy Street, was called as a witness for the State at trial. However,
when asked about the altercation with Matthews, Guzman stated, “You know something, I plead the 5th.” After a break to allow Guzman to speak with his attorney, Guzman returned to the stand and testified that he had no recollection of the events of April 21, 2011. On cross-examination, Guzman admitted that one of the reasons for his lack of memory was that he was usually under the influence of drugs and alcohol in April 2011. Matthews' counsel asked Guzman whether he was aggressive and violent while using drugs and alcohol in the following exchange:
In his offer of proof, Matthews' counsel explained that he sought to introduce testimony by Guzman that, in Guzman's opinion, being under the influence of drugs and alcohol in April 2011 made him aggressive and violent.
Due to Guzman's lack of memory, his deposition testimony was received at trial and read to the jury. On April 21, 2011, Guzman and his then girlfriend, Mariel Betancourt, walked to a gas station from the home of a cousin of Betancourt. Upon their return, Guzman saw a group of people on Eddy Street who had been “starting ... all these problems” with him. Guzman had previously seen one of the group's members at a gas station, and the two had exchanged insults. Guzman explained that since that encounter, the group had been trying to “get” him.
When Guzman saw the group across the street, he wanted to “just get it done” by fighting them. The group was yelling at him, so he approached the group and started “talking shit to them,” with the intent of inviting the group to fight. Guzman had a gun with him because he had heard of various threats the group had made and wanted to be prepared. But he did not see a gun among the members of the group.
Guzman and the group began exchanging threats. Three members of the group crossed the street and approached Guzman. According to Guzman, the three consisted of “Julio,” “MJ,” and “Will,” i.e., Matthews. Guzman showed his gun, and on cross-examination, he confirmed that he was the first to display a firearm. The three opposite Guzman produced a gun as well. The three pointed the gun in Guzman's face and tossed it back and forth among themselves. Guzman pulled out his gun and pointed it back at the three. Matthews attempted to knock the gun from Guzman's hand, but was unsuccessful. Matthews then took the group's gun and pointed it in Guzman's face, and Guzman pointed his gun at Matthews in return.
The standoff ceased when Guzman was advised that the police were on their way and lowered his gun. He turned his back and began to walk away with Betancourt and Betancourt's cousin Maira Sanchez. Sanchez had seen the altercation between Guzman and the group taking place and had come over to Guzman and Betancourt. Guzman heard a woman scream, “ ‘Shoot it,’ ” and MJ say, “ ‘Shoot it, so they can see we don't play around.’ ” After MJ's statement, Guzman heard shots being fired. He turned around and saw leaves falling from nearby bushes. Guzman confirmed that Matthews was the last person he saw holding the group's gun. After the shots were fired, Guzman, Betancourt, and Sanchez went into the home of a relative of Betancourt, and they were called out upon the arrival of police.
Miguel Lemburg, Jr., or “MJ,” testified at trial and largely confirmed Guzman's deposition testimony. He testified that a fight was supposed to occur on April 21, 2011, between “Kevin,” i.e., Guzman, and Lemburg's friend Jaime Valles. Guzman arrived on the opposite side of the street from
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Johnson
...(2009).38 See id.39 State v. Kuehn, 273 Neb. 219, 226, 728 N.W.2d 589, 598 (2007).40 See Peters , 18 P.3d at 1227.41 State v. Matthews, 289 Neb. 184, 854 N.W.2d 576 (2014) ; State v. Faust, 265 Neb. 845, 660 N.W.2d 844 (2003), disapproved in part on other grounds, State v. McCulloch, 274 Ne......
-
Rice v. Bixler
... ... Both verified claims describe the land and the nature of the interest claimed, provide the claimants' names and addresses, and state that they claimed the interest and do not intend to abandon it. The smaller interest of Joe Bixler and Bonnie Bixler Szidon's claim includes a ... ...