State v. Salvador Rodriguez
296 Neb. 950
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On July 23, 2014, Officer Wackler responded to a domestic disturbance involving Lori Ezell, who said she was staying at a house rented by Salvador Rodriguez and Rosa Anguiano and had a key and a bedroom there.
- Ezell left the house with her child for a walk after turning off lights and locking doors; on return she thought someone was in the garage and reported lights were on and vehicle doors open; she asked police to check for an intruder.
- Officers entered the home (front door ajar/unlatched), cleared it for an intruder, discovered two firearms in plain view (one pistol with an altered serial number and an apparently altered shotgun) and briefly handled the pistol for safety.
- Based on the firearms observed during that warrantless entry, officers later obtained search warrants (July 30 and Aug 2, 2014) and seized approximately 340 grams of methamphetamine from under a basement couch and other locations.
- At trial Ezell testified (without pretrial 404 notice) that she and Rodriguez used methamphetamine together in the basement and that he kept drugs under the couch; defense objected under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) but the court admitted the testimony as intrinsic to the charged continuing possession offense and gave no limiting instruction.
- Closing-argument remarks allegedly stating Rodriguez owned the house were not included in the trial record; the defense submitted an affidavit with a new-trial motion but did not preserve those statements in a bill of exceptions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether warrantless entry/search was lawful under emergency (exigent-circumstances) doctrine | Officers had reasonable grounds to believe a burglary/ intruder might be present given report of lights on, ajar door, and witness sighting | Entry was unreasonable; evidence seized post-warrant is fruit of unconstitutional search | Warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances (possible burglary in progress); suppression denied |
| Whether Ezell’s testimony about drug use was inadmissible prior bad-acts evidence under Neb. Evid. R. 404(2) | Such testimony was prior bad-acts evidence and required 404(3) notice/hearing and limiting instruction | Testimony was intrinsic evidence of a continuing possession offense (not separate other-acts) and thus admissible | Court held testimony was direct/intrinsic to charged continuing possession; admission not error |
| Whether trial court should have given a limiting instruction about permissible use of Ezell’s testimony | Needed limiting instruction to prevent propensity inference | No limiting instruction required because evidence was intrinsic to charged offense | No error in declining limiting instruction |
| Whether prosecutor’s closing remarks (that defendant ‘‘owned’’ the house) constituted reversible misconduct | Remarks allegedly misstated ownership and prejudiced defendant | Defense did not preserve closing-argument record; affidavit alone insufficient to raise claim on appeal | Not considered—remarks not in record; no reviewable error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Eberly, 271 Neb. 893 (explains emergency doctrine/exigent-circumstances standards for warrantless entry)
- State v. McCumber, 295 Neb. 941 (standard of review for suppression rulings)
- State v. Perry, 292 Neb. 708 (burden on state to show exception to warrant requirement)
- State v. Freemont, 284 Neb. 179 (discusses when prior possession evidence may be other-acts versus intrinsic)
- U.S. v. Towne, 870 F.2d 880 (continuing possession—evidence of possession on multiple dates can be direct evidence of single ongoing offense)
- United States v. Selberg, 630 F.2d 1292 (contrasting example where facts did not justify warrantless entry)
- Hill v. Commonwealth, 18 Va. App. 1 (officers reasonably entered when door ajar and occupant absent; burglary-in-progress exigency)