State v. Reznicek, 995 N.W.2d 204

Reznicek was charged with misdemeanor shoplifting for events on July 16, 2021, after store loss-prevention observed her take nine pairs of shorts into a fitting room and later leave with only four or five.
Loss-prevention manager Tyler Tietz watched surveillance video, directed manager Megan Krumme to check the fitting room, and later testified Krumme told him she found no shorts inside.
Surveillance video (time-stamped) showed Krumme entering the fitting room within about a minute after Reznicek exited and Tietz contacting Reznicek in the parking lot about 3 minutes after Krumme entered the room.
The county court admitted Tietz’s testimony recounting Krumme’s out-of-court statement over Reznicek’s hearsay objection, convicted Reznicek, and fined her $100; the district court affirmed.
On appeal to the Nebraska Supreme Court Reznicek argued (1) Krumme’s statement was inadmissible hearsay and (2) evidence was insufficient absent that statement; the Supreme Court affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Krumme’s out-of-court statement that no shorts were in the fitting room was admissible under the present sense impression hearsay exception	Statement described an event Krumme perceived and was made immediately after perception, so admissible under §27-803(1)	Timing was not proven; State failed to show the statement was substantially contemporaneous with the observation	Admitted: court adopted a three-part test for present sense impressions (perception, description, substantial contemporaneity) and found no more than ~3 minutes elapsed—insufficient time for reflective thought, so exception applies
Whether evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction absent Krumme’s statement	Video and other evidence plus Krumme’s statement supported conviction	Without Krumme’s hearsay the State’s case is insufficient	Court did not reach a new sufficiency analysis because it ruled the statement admissible and affirmed the conviction

State v. Vaughn, 314 Neb. 167, 989 N.W.2d 378 (Neb. 2023) (framework for interpreting evidentiary rules and prior Nebraska guidance)
State v. Stevens, 290 Neb. 460, 860 N.W.2d 717 (Neb. 2015) (look to federal decisions when Nebraska rules mirror federal rules)
U.S. v. Ruiz, 249 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2001) (examples of admitting statements minutes after events under present sense impression)
U.S. v. Dean, 823 F.3d 422 (8th Cir. 2016) (explaining the rationale that contemporaneity reduces fabrication/memory failure)
Knudson v. Dir., N.D. Dept. of Transp., 530 N.W.2d 313 (N.D. 1995) (no per se rule on time lapse; focus on whether time allowed reflective thought)
State v. Prather, 429 S.C. 583, 840 S.E.2d 551 (S.C. 2020) (treating the three-part present sense impression requirements)