State v. Matthews: the Nebraska Supreme Court Incorrectly Observes a Victim's Character as an Essential Element of Self-defense for the Admission of Specific Character Evidence Under Rule 405

• Publication year: 2022

50 Creighton L. Rev. 587. STATE V. MATTHEWS: THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT INCORRECTLY OBSERVES A VICTIM'S CHARACTER AS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF SELF-DEFENSE FOR THE ADMISSION OF SPECIFIC CHARACTER EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 405

STATE V. MATTHEWS: THE NEBRASKA SUPREME COURT INCORRECTLY OBSERVES A VICTIM'S CHARACTER AS AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF SELF-DEFENSE FOR THE ADMISSION OF SPECIFIC CHARACTER EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 405

Blake Miller-'17

I. INTRODUCTION

Under Nebraska Rule of Evidence 404(fn1) ("Rule 404"), the general rule regarding character evidence provides that evidence of a person's character or a trait of his character is inadmissible to show the person acted in conformity with his character on a particular occasion.(fn2) However, in a criminal trial, Rule 404 also provides exceptions to the general character evidence rule.(fn3) The accused in a criminal trial may introduce evidence of a pertinent trait of his character under Rule 404(1)(a), and the accused may introduce evidence of the victim's character under Rule 404(1)(b).(fn4) If character evidence is introduced by the accused pursuant to Rule 404(1)(a) or Rule 404(1)(b), the prosecution may then introduce character evidence to rebut such evidence presented by the accused.(fn5)

If character evidence is admissible pursuant to Rule 404, Nebraska Rule of Evidence 405(fn6) ("Rule 405") prescribes the permissible method of proving character.(fn7) In any case where character evidence is admissible, Rule 405(1) dictates that proof of such character may be made by reputation or opinion testimony.(fn8) Once the proponent introduces character evidence by reputation or opinion testimony, the adverse party is then permitted to cross-examine on specific instances of conduct to rebut the reputation or opinion testimony.(fn9) While Rule 405(1) allows admission of specific prior conduct only if the proponent opens the door by introducing reputation or opinion testimony on character, Rule 405(2) sets forth narrow circumstances where specific acts proving character are admissible without the door-opening frame-work.(fn10) Such narrow circumstances occur only when a person's character or a trait of a person's character is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense.(fn11)

In State v. Matthews,(fn12) the Nebraska Supreme Court analyzed the presentation of character evidence in a criminal trial where the accused claimed he acted in self-defense.(fn13) The Nebraska Supreme Court observed the victim's character was an essential element of a criminal defendant's claim that he acted in self-defense.(fn14) Further, the court in Matthews prescribed that a criminal defendant claiming he acted in self-defense may introduce character evidence of the victim's specific prior instances of aggressive or violent conduct.(fn15)

This Note will first review the facts and holding of Matthews.(fn16)This Note will then discuss the Nebraska Rules of Evidence concerning the admissibility of character evidence as well as Nebraska cases defining the essential elements of a charge, claim, or defense.(fn17) This Note will next illustrate Nebraska's prima facie elements of a self-defense claim and provide case law from jurisdictions other than Nebraska that have analyzed the evidentiary issues presented in Matthews.(fn18) This Note will argue the Nebraska Supreme Court in Matthews incorrectly observed that a victim's character is an essential element of an accused's self-defense claim and erred in prescribing that an accused claiming self-defense may introduce character evidence of a victim's prior specific instances of aggressive or violent conduct.(fn19) This Note will also demonstrate the Nebraska Supreme Court's opinion in Matthews compels Nebraska trial court judges to violate their jurisprudential duty to control witness interrogation and presentation of evidence at trial.(fn20) Finally, this Note will conclude that Nebraska law should adopt the positions taken by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and numerous state courts sitting in the Eighth Circuit, which have specified that an accused claiming self-defense may only prove a victim's character for aggressiveness or violence by reputation or opinion testimony.(fn21)

II. FACTS AND HOLDING

In State v. Matthews,(fn22) the state of Nebraska brought felony charges against the defendant, William Matthews, for attempted first degree murder and for use of a deadly weapon in the commission of a felony with respect to the victim, Kevin Guzman.(fn23) The case revolved around an April 21, 2011 confrontation that took place in Grand Island, Nebraska.(fn24) The confrontation involved two feuding groups- one group included the victim, Guzman, and the other group included the defendant, Matthews-which concluded when Matthews fired gun shots.(fn25) Guzman also had a gun during the confrontation and was the first to show his gun, but he did not fire it at any time.(fn26) Matthews claimed he fired his gun in self-defense after seeing Guzman show a semiautomatic pistol from his waistband.(fn27)

A jury trial for the charges brought against Matthews began on August 28, 2012 in the District Court of Hall County, Nebraska.(fn28) The victim, Guzman, was called to testify against Matthews during the State's case-in-chief.(fn29) On cross-examination of Guzman, he admitted that he had trouble remembering the events on April 21, 2011 because on that day he was either intoxicated from alcohol or high on drugs.(fn30) During the same cross-examination, counsel for Matthews sought to elicit testimony from Guzman that he had a character of aggressiveness and violence while drunk or high.(fn31) The State objected to this questioning on the basis of improper character evidence, relevance, and unfair prejudice.(fn32) The district court sustained the State's objection.(fn33) In response, counsel for Matthews called for a sidebar, and the district court adjourned for the day.(fn34) A motion in limine was heard the next morning regarding Guzman's testimony to his character of aggressiveness and violence.(fn35) The district court reiterated its decision from the previous day that no specific character evidence of Guzman's aggressiveness and violence would be admitted.(fn36) Counsel for Matthews then made an offer of proof wherein Guzman testified to specific character evidence that consuming alcohol and drugs made him aggressive and violent.(fn37) The State objected to the offer of proof again, on the basis of improper character evidence, relevance, and unfair prejudice, and the district court sustained the objection.(fn38) At the conclusion of trial, the jury returned a unanimous verdict finding Matthews guilty of attempted first degree murder of Guzman and guilty ofusing a deadly weapon to commit a felony with respect to the victim Guzman.(fn39)

Matthews appealed his convictions to the Nebraska Court of Appeals on the ground that the trial court erred in not allowing the victim, Guzman, to testify about his character of aggressiveness and violence.(fn40) The court of appeals noted that for a criminal defendant to successfully claim self-defense as justification for his use of force, the defendant must have had a reasonable and good faith belief in the necessity for such force, and the force used must be justified and must be immediately necessary under the circumstances.(fn41) Further, prior Nebraska case law interpreting subsection two of Nebraska Rule of Evidence 405 ("Rule 405") prescribes that determining whether the victim was the initial aggressor is an essential element to a self-defense claim.(fn42) Matthews relied on the precedent set by the Nebraska Supreme Court in State v. Sims(fn43) to support his argument that specific character evidence of the victim's violent and aggressive tendencies is admissible in a self-defense case.(fn44) The court of appeals agreed with Matthews and explained that under Rule 405(2), Guzman's prior acts of aggressiveness and violence are an essential element of Mat-thews's self-defense claim.(fn45) Therefore, the appellate court ruled the trial court erred in refusing to admit Guzman's testimony about his prior aggressive and violent acts when under the influence of drugs and alcohol.(fn46) Ultimately, the court of appeals expounded that thetrial court's error constituted reversible error, vacated Matthews's convictions, and remanded for a new trial.(fn47)

The State appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.(fn48) The Nebraska Supreme Court agreed with the Nebraska Court of Appeals that the trial court erred in refusing to admit Guzman's testimony regarding his prior violent acts when under the influence of alcohol and drugs.(fn49) The Nebraska Supreme Court prescribed that when a criminal defendant claims self-defense, evidence of a victim's prior aggressive and violent acts is admissible pursuant to Rule 405(2) to show the victim was the first aggressor.(fn50) Additionally, the Nebraska Supreme Court in Matthews observed that a victim's prior aggressive and violent acts are an essential element of a self-defense claim pursuant to Rule 405(2).(fn51) Although the Nebraska Supreme Court reasoned that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of Guzman's specific prior bad acts, it determined such evidence was cumulative to other evidence admitted at trial.(fn52) Thus, the court determined the error by the trial court was a harmless error, and the Nebraska Supreme Court reinstated Matthews's...