Distorting the Rule of Completeness: The Misapplication of Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 27-106: State v. Schrein
No Thumbnail Available
Authors
Ganson, Carrie A.
Issue Date
1995
Type
Journal Article
Language
Keywords
Alternative Title
Abstract
INTRODUCTION|When a judge admits only a portion of evidence at trial, there exists a danger that the admission of the part may distort the whole. A good example "would be accusing the Biblical David of blasphemy for saying, 'There is no God,' his full statement being, 'The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God.' " The Nebraska Unicameral proposed Nebraska Revised Statutes section 27-106 ("section 27-106") to prevent such misunderstandings.|In State v. Schrein, the Nebraska Supreme Court considered the correct application of section 27-106. In 1990, the State of Nebraska charged Dr. Daniel Schrein with five counts of sexual assault of a child. At his trial, the State moved to admit a Redbook magazine article on pedophiles in response to defense counsel's questioning of a police sergeant. The trial court admitted the Redbook article despite defense counsel's objections as to relevance. The Nebraska Supreme Court upheld the trial court's decision to admit the article under section 27-106. However, Judge Thomas Shanahan, dissenting from the supreme court's opinion, determined that the court misapplied section 27-106, and thereby violated Dr. Schrein's constitutional "rights to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses."...
Description
Citation
28 Creighton L. Rev. 295 (1994-1995)
Publisher
Creighton University School of Law