State v. Cerros, 978 N.W.2d 162

On June 20, 2020, Joel A. Cerros' car was traveling south in the northbound lane of U.S. Highway 81 and collided with a northbound motorcycle; the motorcyclist died.
Cerros was charged with motor vehicle homicide (DUI predicate), DUI, manslaughter (predicate: reckless driving), and possession of drug paraphernalia; he pled no contest to possession.
At trial witnesses and an accident reconstructionist testified that Cerros’ vehicle was in the wrong lane (~5–6 ft over centerline), there were no skid marks, and no corrective action was taken; defense offered evidence he was preparing to turn left.
Deputy Devin Betzen testified generally that driving the wrong way could be a sign of impairment and could be a sign of reckless driving; the court overruled Cerros’ objection to that question.
The jury acquitted Cerros of DUI and motor vehicle homicide but convicted him of manslaughter (based on reckless driving); Cerros was sentenced to 8–12 years.

Issue	State's Argument	Cerros' Argument	Held
Admissibility of deputy Betzen's testimony that driving the wrong way "could be" a sign of reckless driving	Testimony was general, not an opinion that Cerros was guilty, and was admissible under evidentiary rules	Testimony usurped jury factfinding and impermissibly opined on ultimate issue of guilt	Admission not an abuse of discretion — answer was general and did not state Cerros was guilty
Sufficiency of the evidence to convict of manslaughter (predicate: reckless driving)	Evidence (wrong‑lane driving, lack of skid marks, failure to react) supported a rational finding of reckless driving and causation	Evidence at most showed negligence or a traffic infraction (momentary inattention) insufficient for manslaughter	Evidence sufficient — jury could rationally find indifferent/wanton disregard required for reckless driving
Failure to instruct on careless driving as a lesser‑included offense	No direct request for a careless driving instruction was made; defendant asked only for reckless or willful reckless as lesser	Argued later on appeal that careless driving should have been given as lesser-included offense	No reversible error — defendant did not timely/request the careless driving instruction, so failure to give it is not reviewable

State v. Wood, 310 Neb. 391 (evidentiary admissibility and standard of review for evidence questions)
State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (law‑enforcement witness may not opine that defendant is guilty; such opinions are improper)
State v. Pauly, 311 Neb. 418 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence in criminal convictions)
State v. Carman, 292 Neb. 207 (traffic infractions/public‑welfare offenses lacking mens rea cannot support manslaughter; reckless driving can)
State v. Smith, 284 Neb. 636 (lesser‑included offense instruction must be requested; failure to give one not error if not requested)