State v. Pangborn
286 Neb. 363
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Pangborn was tried for multiple counts of abuse of vulnerable adults and strangulation based on incidents at a state developmental center; jury convicted him on nine counts and acquitted on one.
- The State repeatedly used a one-page chart (Exhibit 36) as a “road map” summarizing each count: victim, witness, location, and injury.
- Exhibit 36 was admitted pretrial for demonstrative purposes only; Pangborn consented to its trial use but objected to sending it to the jury during deliberations.
- During trial the exhibit was displayed repeatedly and the prosecutor told jurors it was “stipulated,” but the court never informed the jury that the chart was only demonstrative or gave an exhibit‑specific limiting instruction.
- At the in‑chambers instruction conference, the court (on its own motion) allowed the jury to take Exhibit 36 into the jury room over Pangborn’s objection and without any safeguards; the jury convicted and Pangborn appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court abused its discretion by allowing a demonstrative exhibit (Ex. 36) into jury deliberations without a limiting instruction or safeguards | Pangborn: sending the demonstrative chart to the jury without a limiting instruction or other safeguards was an abuse of discretion and prejudicial | State: the exhibit was helpful, used throughout trial, and the jury’s mixed verdict shows no undue influence; trial court discretion permitted its use | Court: Abuse of discretion. Trial judge must weigh usefulness v. prejudice and employ safeguards (usually a limiting instruction); reversal and remand for new trial |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Pangborn: error was prejudicial and not harmless | State: acquittal on one count shows no undue influence; other evidence supports verdicts | Court: Error not harmless. No adequate safeguards or instruction; cannot say verdicts were surely unattributable to the error |
| Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy | Pangborn: argued the possibility | State: retrial permissible | Court: Retrial permitted; the total admissible evidence (even excluding the chart) was sufficient to sustain convictions, so double jeopardy does not forbid retrial |
| Whether other evidentiary and sufficiency claims must be decided | Pangborn: challenged admission of time sheets (Exs. 37–38), sufficiency, and sentence | State: defended prior rulings | Court: Declined to reach other issues due to reversal on demonstrative exhibit; those issues may be revisited on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Benzel v. Keller Indus., 253 Neb. 20 (1997) (principles governing admissibility of demonstrative exhibits in civil cases)
- State v. Daly, 278 Neb. 903 (2009) (trial judge’s duty to weigh demonstrative exhibit admissibility and limit prejudice)
- United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390 (1st Cir. 2006) (requiring safeguards when demonstrative exhibits are sent to jury; usefulness and protections required)
- United States v. Salerno, 108 F.3d 730 (7th Cir. 1997) (discussing judicial discretion and limiting instructions for demonstrative aids)
- United States v. Pendas‑Martinez, 845 F.2d 938 (11th Cir. 1988) (11th Circuit’s restrictive rule disfavoring sending demonstrative exhibits to jury except in narrow circumstances)
- United States v. Downen, 496 F.2d 314 (10th Cir. 1974) (illustrating federal approaches allowing demonstrative exhibits with safeguards)