Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Evidence Rules topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Proposal would require judges to rule pretrial on when related bad‑acts evidence is "inextricably intertwined"
Summary
Sen. George Duncan's LB1036 seeks to standardize pretrial handling of evidence counsel says is "inextricably intertwined" with charged crimes so judges can rule outside juries before trial; defense groups favored the pretrial clarity while the attorney general and county attorneys warned the change would wrongly recast longstanding evidentiary law and create extra procedural burdens.
Senator George Duncan told the committee LB1036 responds to recurring litigation about when evidence of other acts is "inextricably intertwined" with a charged offense and therefore not subject to Rule 404's propensity limits. The bill would define "inextricably intertwined" and require a pretrial hearing (outside the jury) and a judicial ruling when the state intends to introduce such evidence.
Criminal-defense groups supported the bill as a way to prevent surprise admissions of prior bad acts at trial and to create a predictable process for judges and counsel. "We're not trying to change the standard for any of this. We're just trying to establish what is and what is not inextricably intertwined," an attorney for the defense association said.
The attorney general's office and county prosecutors opposed the bill, arguing it effectively transforms evidence intrinsic to the charged offense into a subset of Rule 404 and would force the state to meet a pretrial, heightened threshold (clear‑and‑convincing in the bill's language) to present evidence that federal and Nebraska courts treat as part of the charged crime. Opponents said current rules and appellate review provide remedies and that the proposed change would impose substantial, unnecessary hearings that slow cases.
Ending: Committee members acknowledged the tension between avoiding surprise and preserving evidentiary principles. The sponsor said he would work with opponents on narrower drafting but pushed for clearer pretrial procedures so juries avoid hearing likely‑prejudicial information that may not be admissible.
