Summary
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Eddy D. Stabler’s convictions for second degree assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, as well as consecutive sentences totaling 15 to 25 years’ imprisonment. The court rejected challenges concerning a limiting instruction, testimony about prior felony convictions, a lesser-included-offense instruction, sufficiency of the evidence, and excessive sentencing.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the district court erred by failing to give a specific limiting instruction after striking the State's rebuttal comment suggesting that the defense could have subpoenaed witnesses.
- Whether the district court erred by prohibiting Stabler from testifying on direct examination that his prior felony convictions were for forgery.
- Whether the district court was required to instruct the jury on third degree assault as a lesser-included offense of second degree assault.
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Stabler's convictions under an aiding and abetting theory.
- Whether Stabler's consecutive sentences were excessive.
Holdings
- The district court did not err in refusing to give the requested additional limiting instruction because it struck the State's comments, instructed the jury to disregard them, and repeatedly instructed the jury that the State bore the burden of proof. Even assuming error, Stabler failed to show prejudice.
- The district court did not commit reversible error concerning Stabler's prior convictions because Stabler was permitted to testify that the convictions involved crimes of dishonesty, thereby informing the jury that they were not crimes of violence. The court declined to decide whether the contrary rule stated in State v. Howell was correct.
- The district court properly refused to give a third-degree-assault instruction because the evidence did not provide a rational basis for acquitting Stabler of second degree assault and convicting him of third degree assault.
- The evidence was sufficient to support Stabler's convictions for second degree assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.
- The consecutive sentences were not excessive because they were within statutory limits and the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering relevant sentencing factors or relying on improper information.
Key quotations
“Whether the jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law.” (305 Neb. at 420)
“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.” (305 Neb. at 424-425)
“It is not the role of an appellate court to pass on the credibility of the witnesses, or otherwise resolve conflicts in or reweigh the evidence.” (305 Neb. at 425-426)
Factual background
Stabler arranged with his relative, Athea Stabler, to assault his estranged wife, Jacinda, offering money and methamphetamine in exchange. He gave Athea a knife, and Athea used it to stab Jacinda in her home. Athea later testified that Stabler requested the assault and paid her for it; electronic messages between the two also discussed the assault, the knife, and the investigation.
Procedural history
A Lancaster County District Court jury convicted Stabler of second degree assault and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The district court imposed consecutive sentences of 10 to 15 years and 5 to 10 years, respectively. Stabler appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court, which affirmed the convictions and sentences.