State v. Barnett
A-16-679
| Neb. Ct. App. | Mar 28, 2017Background
- Defendant Tyler Barnett rented a party bus, was with intoxicated passenger Andrea Norris, and exchanged texts with her around 2:30 a.m. requesting pickup.
- Andrea was dropped in Roca; later Barnett arrived at an unlocked business, briefly spoke with Andrea, then hid when her parents arrived.
- Andrea’s parents found Barnett bleeding and with fresh scratches; a damaged vehicle with broken windows and missing tire(s) was parked outside; Barnett admitted rolling his vehicle and asked for help moving it.
- Deputies tracked gouge marks from the business to a rollover crash site ~3+ miles away; they found Barnett’s license plate, an iPhone, a letter, and a knife at the scene; deputies observed signs of intoxication and arrested Barnett.
- Barnett refused field sobriety tests; his breath test at 6:27 a.m. registered .128 g/210 L. County court convicted Barnett of DUI (one prior), leaving the scene of a property-damage accident, and reckless driving; district court affirmed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of text messages (foundation) | Texts show Barnett agreed to pick up Andrea; proper foundation established | Barnett: Andrea too intoxicated to identify sender; no foundation | Admitted — court found sufficient foundation (Andrea had prior communications, number saved, photographs of texts); authorship challenge goes to weight |
| Text messages (hearsay / relevance / Confrontation) | Texts were party-opponent/nonhearsay and relevant to motive/timeframe | Barnett: texts were hearsay and testimonial; violated Confrontation/Due Process | Admitted — treated as nontestimonial and nonhearsay (party admission); relevant to why/when Barnett drove to Roca |
| Lay witness opinion (Timothy’s testimony on vehicle operability and intoxication) | Testimony was probative on condition of vehicle and Barnett’s state | Barnett: Timothy lacked expertise; statements prejudicial | Even if erroneous, admission harmless — multiple deputies offered similar observations and physical evidence corroborated conclusions |
| Testimony of Barnett’s statements to Timothy | Statements are admissible party admissions | Barnett: corpus delicti/overreliance on statements | Admissible — defendant’s statements are nonhearsay party admissions and were corroborated by independent evidence |
| Application of corpus delicti & sufficiency of evidence | Prosecution had more than slight corroboration beyond admissions | Barnett: conviction relied on his statements only (citing Martin) | Affirmed — physical evidence (texts, gouge marks, items at crash site, deputies’ observations, breath test) provided sufficient corroboration and supported convictions |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Henry, 292 Neb. 834, 875 N.W.2d 374 (Nev. 2016) (text-message foundation and authorship principles)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause testimonial statement analysis)
- State v. Martin, 18 Neb. App. 338, 782 N.W.2d 37 (Neb. App. 2010) (insufficient evidence where only defendant’s admission tied him to driving)
- State v. Scott, 200 Neb. 265 (Neb. 1978) (confession plus slight corroboration can establish corpus delicti)
- State v. Gonzales, 294 Neb. 627, 884 N.W.2d 102 (Neb. 2016) (standard for sufficiency review in criminal cases)