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

Background

Defendant Carl A. Heng shot and killed Robert Lane on August 24, 2015; Heng admitted firing but claimed self-defense. He was charged with second-degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony; the jury convicted him of manslaughter and the weapon charge. Sentence: 14–22 years' imprisonment.
Key disputed issue at trial: whether Heng reasonably and in good faith believed deadly force was immediately necessary (self-defense). Heng testified and gave a recorded interview to police asserting he was pinned and feared for his life.
Prosecution evidence: eyewitness testimony (including Jacob Epperson) placing Heng several feet from Lane while firing, forensic pathology and firearms testing indicating shots were fired from several feet away, and other witness testimony undermining Heng’s account of a close struggle.
Defense evidence: experts (a psychologist the court excluded; forensic pathologist and firearms examiner admitted) opining closer range/trajectory consistent with Heng’s account; testimony about Lane’s prior violent behavior and Heng’s peaceful reputation.
Trial rulings challenged on appeal: exclusion of psychologist Kirk Newring’s testimony; exclusion of a 911 recording; admission without redaction of officers’ narrative statements in Heng’s recorded police interview; refusal to give a jury instruction on the victim’s character for violence; and sufficiency of evidence.

Issues

Issue	Heng's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Exclusion of psychologist (Dr. Newring)	Testimony would explain Heng’s state of mind and support self-defense; denial violated Sixth Amendment right to present a defense	Testimony was unnecessary, would merely state the jury’s role, and would not assist the trier of fact	Court affirmed exclusion: expert would have merely bolstered credibility and not aided the jury; constitutional claim not preserved for appeal
Exclusion of Epperson’s 911 recording	Recording was an excited utterance / relevant impeachment and its exclusion violated confrontation and evidentiary rules	Recording was hearsay; no offer of proof made so contents not in record	Court found issue not preserved (no offer of proof); even assuming error, exclusion would be harmless because defense impeached Epperson by other means
Failure to redact detective’s legal narratives in Heng’s recorded interview	Officer’s comments about self-defense were inadmissible, prejudicial, and implicated confrontation/due process concerns	Officer’s narrative provided context to Heng’s statements and was interview technique; limiting instruction could cure any prejudice	Court upheld admission except for one lengthy concluding narrative that solicited no response; that single unredacted statement was error but harmless given limiting instruction and overall record
Refusal to give jury instruction on victim’s character for violence	Requested instruction (about Lane’s violent character) was warranted by evidence and necessary for self-defense determination	Existing instructions adequately informed jury to consider witness testimony about victim’s character; proposed instruction would be cumulative	Court affirmed refusal: substance covered by other instructions and defendant not prejudiced
Sufficiency of evidence to disprove self-defense	Heng argued evidence proved self-defense; convictions unsupported	State relied on eyewitness, forensic, and Heng’s own admissions contradicting imminent threat	Court held evidence was sufficient to reject self-defense; conflicts in testimony were for the jury to resolve

Key Cases Cited

State v. Braesch, 292 Neb. 930 (expert testimony reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Thompson, 278 Neb. 320 (issues raised first on appeal are disregarded)
State v. Mason, 271 Neb. 16 (requirements for expert admissibility under Neb. Evid. R. 702)
State v. Reynolds, 235 Neb. 662 (expert opinion inadmissible if it merely states what the jury can deduce)
State v. Draganescu, 276 Neb. 448 (admissibility governed by Nebraska Evidence Rules)
State v. Schreiner, 276 Neb. 393 (offer of proof required to preserve exclusion of evidence)
State v. Rocha, 295 Neb. 716 (law-enforcement narrative in recorded interviews analyzed under ordinary evidence rules; context relevance test)
State v. Lester, 295 Neb. 878 (harmless-error review focuses on verdict actually rendered)
State v. France, 279 Neb. 49 (self-defense burdens and appellate sufficiency review)
State v. Iromuanya, 272 Neb. 178 (reasonable, good-faith belief required for self-defense)
State v. McCurry, 296 Neb. 40 (standards for reviewing jury instructions)
State v. Lewchuk, 4 Neb. App. 165 (admissibility of victim’s prior violent conduct evidence)