State v. Heng
25 Neb. Ct. App. 317
| Neb. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On Aug. 24, 2015, Carl Heng shot Robert Lane after an argument outside an apartment; Heng admitted shooting but claimed self-defense. Lane later died; Heng was charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.
- Key factual dispute centered on distance, positioning, and whether Lane posed an imminent threat: eyewitness Epperson testified Heng fired from several feet away while backing up; forensic testing and autopsy supported shots fired from a distance rather than point-blank contact.
- Defense presented experts and witnesses to support self-defense: a psychologist (Dr. Newring) to opine on Heng’s state of mind, forensic/trajectory experts, and testimony on Lane’s violent character; prosecution presented forensic experts and contrary eyewitness accounts.
- Pretrial and trial evidentiary rulings: the court excluded Dr. Newring’s proffered testimony and excluded a 911-recording (no offer of proof preserved the issue), but admitted the full recorded police interview of Heng (including detective narration) with one narrative later found nonprobative.
- Jury convicted Heng of manslaughter (reduced from murder) and use of a weapon to commit a felony; sentenced to 14–22 years. Heng appealed, raising evidentiary, redaction, jury instruction, and sufficiency-of-evidence claims.
Issues
| Issue | Heng's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exclusion of psychologist (Dr. Newring) | Excluding Dr. Newring deprived Heng of presenting expert evidence on his state of mind and violated his right to present a defense | Testimony would merely tell the jury how to decide a factual issue and would be superfluous; not helping the jury | Court affirmed exclusion: expert would not have aided jury; opinion was bolstering/duplicative and district court did not abuse discretion |
| Exclusion of Epperson’s 911 call | 911 recording was admissible (excited utterance / state of mind) and necessary for impeachment; Confrontation clause argued on appeal | Hearsay; trial court sustained objection; no offer of proof preserved content for appeal | Issue not preserved for appellate review (no offer of proof); even if error, exclusion was harmless because counsel impeached Epperson via questioning and other evidence |
| Failure to redact detective narration from Heng’s interview | Detective Watson’s legal commentary on self-defense was hearsay, prejudicial, and should have been redacted; violated confrontation/due process (raised on appeal) | Detective’s comments provided context for Heng’s statements and were part of an interrogation technique; limiting instruction sufficed | With one narrow exception (a concluding narrative that elicited no response), admission of detective narration was proper as context; the one unredacted statement was error but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Refusal to give instruction on victim’s violent character | Requested instruction to explicitly tell jury to consider Lane’s character for violence for self-defense analysis | Existing instructions and testimony already allowed the jury to consider character evidence; requested instruction would be cumulative | Denial was not reversible error: proposed instruction was unnecessary because substance was covered in other instructions; no prejudice shown |
| Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self-defense | Heng: evidence established self-defense | State: forensic, eyewitness, and Heng’s own statements undermined reasonableness of force | Evidence was sufficient; jury credited State’s proofs and conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review for expert-admission rulings)
- State v. Thompson, 278 Neb. 320 (Neb. 2009) (issues raised first on appeal are disregarded)
- State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 (Neb. 2006) (elements for expert admissibility under Neb. Evid. R. 702)
- State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662 (Neb. 1990) (expert opinion inadmissible when jury can deduce same conclusion)
- State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2017) (law-enforcement narration in recorded interviews analyzed under ordinary evidence rules; context principle)
- State v. France, 279 Neb. 49 (Neb. 2009) (standards for appellate sufficiency review in criminal cases)