State v. Heng, 25 Neb. Ct. App. 317

Background

Defendant Carl A. Heng shot and killed Robert Lane after an altercation in the parking area of Lane’s apartment building; Heng admitted the shooting but claimed self-defense.
Jury convicted Heng of manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; court sentenced him to 14–22 years’ imprisonment.
Key factual disputes relevant to self-defense: Heng claimed Lane pinned him against a wall and threatened to kill him; several witnesses and ballistic/medical experts placed the shooter several feet from Lane and found no close-range wound evidence.
Defense sought to introduce (1) a psychologist’s expert opinion concerning Heng’s state of mind at the shooting and (2) a 911 recording by a bystander; the court excluded both (psychologist) or refused admission (911 recording) in part.
The court admitted the full video-recorded police interview of Heng (including lengthy detective commentary about self-defense); defense sought redaction of detective’s legal-norm commentary but the court largely denied redaction and gave a limiting instruction to the jury.
On appeal Heng challenged evidentiary rulings, refusal to redact parts of his interview, refusal to give a jury instruction about victim’s violent character, and sufficiency of the evidence; the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Heng's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Exclusion of psychologist (Dr. Newring)	Court wrongly excluded expert on Heng’s state of mind; violated right to present a defense	Testimony would not assist jury and would impermissibly bolster defendant’s credibility	Affirmed: exclusion not an abuse of discretion; testimony superfluous and would primarily bolster credibility
Exclusion of Epperson’s 911 recording	Call was admissible (excited utterance / state of mind) and needed for confrontation/impeachment	Hearsay; trial court properly excluded; no offer of proof preserved record	Affirmed: preservation failure (no offer of proof); even if error, exclusion harmless given impeachment by other means
Admission of Heng’s full police interview (detective’s legal commentary)	Detective’s narrative on self-defense should have been redacted (hearsay/opinion/confrontation/due process)	Detective’s comments provided context for defendant’s statements and were properly limited by instruction	Affirmed with caveat: one lengthy, non-eliciting narrative should have been redacted but error was harmless given limiting instruction and other evidence
Refusal to give instruction on victim’s character for violence	Requested instruction was correct and warranted by evidence; refusal prejudiced Heng	Jury was adequately instructed to consider witness testimony about victim’s character; instruction would be duplicative	Affirmed: refusal not reversible error because substance was covered elsewhere in jury instructions
Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self-defense	Evidence supports Heng’s self-defense claim	State: evidence (witnesses, forensics, Heng’s admissions) permitted rejecting self-defense	Affirmed: reasonable jurors could find Heng not acting in self-defense; conviction supported by the evidence

Key Cases Cited

State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 (Neb. 2016) (standard of review for expert testimony admissibility)
State v. Thompson, 278 Neb. 320 (Neb. 2009) (issues raised first on appeal disregarded)
State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 (Neb. 2006) (Neb. Evid. R. 702 expert admissibility factors)
State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662 (Neb. 1990) (expert opinions that merely duplicate the jury’s role are superfluous)
State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (Neb. 2017) (admissibility of law-enforcement narrative in recorded interviews is governed by ordinary evidence rules; consider context and probative value)
State v. Lester, 295 Neb. 878 (Neb. 2017) (harmless-error framework focusing on whether verdict is attributable to error)
State v. France, 279 Neb. 49 (Neb. 2009) (self-defense as affirmative defense; appellate standard refusing to reweigh credibility)