State v. Rotella, 40739
| Decision Date | 13 October 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 40739,40739 |
| Parties | STATE of Nebraska, Appellee, v. Michael John ROTELLA, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Testimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact.
2. In criminal cases prosecuted under the motor vehicle homicide act, the negligence or unlawful acts of another driver which proximately contributed to the death, as distinguished from an independent intervening cause thereof, is not a defense if the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's negligence or unlawful acts were also a proximate cause of the death of another.
William J. Dunn, Gross, Welch, Vinardi, Kauffman & Day, Omaha, for appellant.
Paul L. Douglas, Atty. Gen., Ralph H. Gillan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lincoln, for appellee.
Heard before SPENCER, BOSLAUGH, McCOWN, NEWTON, CLINTON and BRODKEY, JJ.
Michael John Rotella, defendant, was convicted of motor vehicle homicide in connection with a two-car collision resulting in the death of the driver of the other vehicle. He was sentenced to a term of 5 months in the Douglas County correctional department. He prosecutes this appeal, alleging two assignments of error. (1) The court erred in excluding the testimony of an expert witness as to the presence of a drug in the blood of the deceased. (2) The court erred in admitting in evidence over objection a diagram depicting the point of impact of the accident scene. We affirm.
We first consider defendant's second assignment. The accident occurred on October 3, 1975. Both cars involved were proceeding along 108th Street in Omaha. Defendant was traveling in the southbound lane and decedent in the northbound lane. The State sought to prove that defendant was driving on the wrong side of the road at the time of impact between the two vehicles. The trial court sustained a motion in limine which prevented the investigating officers from giving an opinion as to the point of impact.
The State was permitted to introduce over objection a diagram, exhibit 3, which showed the position of the automobiles, skid marks, and the gouge marks in the pavement. The gouge marks in the northbound lane are marked with an 'X' and identified on the chart as point 'B'. Point 'B' was further identified on the chart as 'possible point of impact.' The trial court required the deletion of the words 'possible point of impact' before the admission of the exhibit.
It is defendant's contention that the jurors, in examining the exhibit, would naturally assume the 'X' marked the point of impact. Defendant's motion in limine was based upon Stillwell v. Schmoker (1963), 175 Neb. 595, 122 N.W.2d 538. In the past, an investigating officer has not been permitted to testify over objection as to the location of the point of impact. We have held the point of impact to be an ultimate fact to be determined by the jurors from the physical facts presented to them. This record contains no hint of an opinion by the State's witness as to the location of the point of impact. The chart is one of the scene. Point 'B' marks gouge marks. While the officer thought it to be the possible point of impact, that fact was excluded from the exhibit before it was presented to the jury.
Stillwell v. Schmoker, supra, relied heavily on the fact that the opinion offered invaded the province of the jury. The basis for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Com. v. Heck
...(Alk.1978); State v. Shumway, 137 Ariz. 585, 672 P.2d 929 (1983); State v. Arena, 46 Hawaii 315, 379 P.2d 594 (1963); State v. Rotella, 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74 (1976); Cleveland v. Pellech, 8 Ohio Misc.2d 37, 457 N.E.2d 961 (1983); Hart v. State, 75 Wis.2d 371, 249 N.W.2d 810 Nor can th......
-
People v. Tims
...State v. Kliegel, 674 S.W.2d 64 (Mo.App., 1984) (the victim's negligence was no defense to vehicular manslaughter); State v. Rotella, 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74 (1976) (the victim's negligence was no defense to vehicular homicide); State v. Phelps, 242 N.C. 540, 89 S.E.2d 132 (1955) (the v......
-
State v. Lamont, 21189.
...an "independent intervening cause" and the "proximate cause of the death." See Two Bulls, supra, at ¶ 13 (citing State v. Rotella, 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74, 76 (1976)). Our decision in Two Bulls does not preclude Lamont from offering evidence in support of his [¶ 16.] When a defendant is......
-
State v. Malone
...State v. Irish , 292 Neb. 513, 873 N.W.2d 161 (2016) ; State v. William , 231 Neb. 84, 435 N.W.2d 174 (1989) ; and State v. Rotella , 196 Neb. 741, 246 N.W.2d 74 (1976) ).68 Ring , supra note 67.69 See, also, Brown , supra note 67; William , supra note 67; State v. Meints , 212 Neb. 410, 32......