State v. Vandever, 287 Neb. 807

Vandever was convicted in Scotts Bluff County for possession of methamphetamine.
An eight-minute investigator interview recording was admitted and played for the jury.
During deliberations the jury asked to replay the interview; the court allowed it, with the bailiff present.
The State argued the interview was non-testimonial substantive evidence; Dixon procedures were not required.
Vandever appealed claiming the court failed to conduct a hearing, make findings, and apply heightened Dixon procedures.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Dixon heightened procedures were required	Vandever argues yes for testimonial recording	State argues no, recording non-testimonial or not governed by Dixon	Heightened procedures not required; recording not testimonial
Whether the recording was testimonial or non-testimonial	Vandever contends it was testimonial	State contends it was non-testimonial evidence	Recording treated as non-testimonial evidence; Dixon inapplicable
Effect of jury request on admissible procedures	Request triggered Dixon procedures	No trigger since not testimonial	Procedures not triggered due to non-testimonial nature

State v. Dixon, 259 Neb. 976 (2000) (heightened procedures for testimonial recordings during deliberations)
State v. Halsey, 232 Neb. 658 (1989) (abuse of discretion standard for jury access to evidence during deliberations)
State v. Pischel, 277 Neb. 412 (2009) (limits on jury access to transcripts/exhibits; distinction between testimonial and substantive evidence)
Shiers v. Cowgill, 157 Neb. 265 (1953) (definition and handling of testimony in deliberations)
Graves v. Bednar, 171 Neb. 499 (1960) (live testimony procedures; modes of testimony under statute)
Bakhit v. Thomsen, 193 Neb. 133 (1975) (reading of a deposition during deliberations)