State v. Coleman

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 10/30/2026 08:18 AM CDT - 731 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Tyrice J. Coleman, appellant. ___ N.W.3d ___ Filed October 30, 2026. No. S-25-759. 1. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is con- trolled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admis- sibility. Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse of discretion. 2. ____: ____. Because the exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in determinations of admissibility under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. 3. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 4. Judgments: Sentences: Words and Phrases: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. An abuse of dis- cretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence.  - 732 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 5. Evidence: Proof. The bar for establishing evidentiary relevance is not a high one; it requires only that the probative value of the evidence be something more than nothing. 6. Evidence: Words and Phrases. Evidence is relevant if it tends in any degree to alter the probability of a material fact. 7. ____: ____. Unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a decision based on an improper basis. 8. ____: ____. Unfair prejudice speaks to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure the fact finder into declaring guilt on a ground different from proof specific to the offense charged, commonly on an emotional basis. 9. DNA Testing: Evidence. The relevance of DNA evidence depends on whether it tends to include or exclude an individual as the source of a biological sample. 10. ____: ____. Nebraska case law generally requires that DNA testing results be accompanied by statistical evidence or a probability assess- ment that explains whether the results tend to include or exclude the individual as a potential source. 11. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Where a sentence imposed within the statutory limits is alleged on appeal to be excessive, the appellate court must determine whether the sentencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying the relevant factors, as well as any applicable legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed. 12. Sentences. When imposing a sentence, the sentencing court is to con- sider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education and experi- ence, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) motivation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission of the crime. 13. ____. A sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors, but the appropriateness of the sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment that includes the sentencing judge’s observations of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circum- stances surrounding the defendant’s life. 14. ____. A sentence should be tailored and based on factors that fit the offender and not merely the crime. 15. Constitutional Law: Minors: Sentences. So long as the sentencing judge has discretion to consider a juvenile offender’s youth and impose a lesser sentence, there is no constitutional violation if a court imposes what may amount to a de facto life sentence.  - 733 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Todd O. Engleman, Judge. Affirmed. Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, Kylie O. McDonald, Douglas A. Johnson, and Cassandra J. Harper, Senior Certified Law Student, for appellant. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Melissa R. Vincent for appellee. Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Bergevin, and Vaughn, JJ., and Lee, District Judge. Bergevin, J. INTRODUCTION Tyrice J. Coleman appeals his convictions and sentences in the district court for Douglas County for first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony. Coleman challenges certain evidentiary rulings, and he assigns that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convic- tions and that the court imposed excessive sentences. We affirm Coleman’s convictions and sentences. BACKGROUND Factual Background On February 7, 2024, the State filed an information in the district court charging Coleman with first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony. The charges arose from the November 8, 2023, shooting death of Messiah Holley. A jury trial was held in July 2025. As discussed further below, the evidence at trial indicated that Coleman and several other individuals attacked Holley in a small park located near 18th and Spencer Streets in Omaha, Nebraska. One of the other individuals who took part in the attack testified that Coleman shot Holley. Another witness tes- tified that when Coleman was in prison on the charges in this case, Coleman admitted that he had shot Holley.  - 734 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 Police investigating the shooting found six fired shell cas- ings at the scene, and they found a handgun at a house across the street from the park. The State presented forensics evidence that indicated that the shell casings had been ejected from the handgun, and it presented other evidence that purportedly tied Coleman to the handgun, including DNA evidence and a video found on Coleman’s cell phone that purportedly showed him holding a similar handgun. Coleman filed several motions prior to trial. Relevant on appeal are motions in limine to exclude evidence related to the video and DNA evidence. Evidence Regarding Cell Phone Video and Handgun Comparison Prior to trial, Coleman filed a motion in limine in which he sought to preclude the State from presenting testimony by Jordan Walther, a forensic video technician employed by the Omaha Police Department (OPD), regarding his examination of the video purported to have been recovered from Coleman’s cell phone and to show Coleman with a handgun. Coleman sought to preclude Walther’s testimony and other evidence regarding Walther’s comparison of the handgun depicted in the video to the handgun that investigators believed to be the weapon used to kill Holley. He also filed a separate motion in limine in which he sought to preclude the State from presenting “evidence purporting to be a video of [Coleman] with a fire- arm.” In both motions in limine, Coleman alleged the evidence was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. At a hearing on the motions in limine, the district court received Walther’s report into evidence for purposes of the hearing. In the report, Walther compared still photographs from the video to photographs of the handgun that had been collected as evidence in this case. Walther stated in the report that “[t]he ability to view critical detail within the video files was found to be limited in nature, as the video quality showed visible compression resulting in images that were  - 735 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 compromised from a compare/contrast standpoint.” The report included various photographs showing similarities between the handgun shown in the video and the handgun in evidence. Walther concluded in the report that although there was “a lack of individual characteristics due to quality of the submit- ted firearm video segment,” there was “limited support that the firearm of interest is the same as the known” firearm. He explained that there was limited support based on a “relatively clear view of marked characteristics,” “some class charac- teristics that allow for a surface comparison,” and “no gross dissimilarities or unexplained differences.” Coleman argued that because Walther found similarities but could not say it was the same gun, the evidence had no probative value and was unfairly prejudicial. He also argued that the video was not relevant because although the State alleged that the video was created a week before the shooting of Holley, based on a date indicated on the cell phone, there was no foundation to prove whether the video was created on that date or at some earlier date. After the hearing, the district court overruled the motions in limine related to Walther’s testimony and to the cell phone video. The court found that Walther qualified as an expert and that his testimony would help the trier of fact to understand the evidence. The court also found that the video was relevant evidence and that its probative value was not outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The cell phone video was admitted into evidence at the trial during testimony by Nathan Meisinger, an OPD officer who found the video on Coleman’s cell phone. The district court overruled Coleman’s objections to the video based on rel- evance and foundation. Meisinger testified that data from the cell phone indicated that the video was “taken on Snapchat” and “saved from Snapchat” on October 31, 2023. Before the State played the video for the jury, Coleman renewed his motion in limine and the court overruled the objection. During cross-examination, Coleman asked Meisinger whether  - 736 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 a “Snapchat video” could be made on one date and then saved on a later date. Meisinger replied that he was “unaware of that,” and he later testified that he had not subpoenaed Snapchat to get more information. Walther testified at the trial regarding his comparison of the handgun in the cell phone video to the handgun in evidence. Prior to Walther’s testimony, Coleman renewed his motion in limine, and in addition to the arguments he made prior to trial, he noted that earlier in the trial, a firearms examiner had testified that without examining serial numbers, one could not definitively say that a gun shown in a photograph was the same gun that was in evidence. Coleman again renewed his motion in limine when the State offered Walther’s report into evidence. The district court overruled Coleman’s objec- tion at both times. Walther thereafter testified regarding his comparison, and he testified that while he could not say for certain that the handgun in the video was the same handgun that was in evidence, he had found no dissimilarities. On cross-examination, Coleman elicited testimony by Walther that his conclusions were limited based in part on the quality of the video and visible compression of the images. Evidence Regarding DNA Testing Prior to trial, Coleman filed a motion in limine in which he sought to prohibit the State from introducing evidence or testimony related to a DNA report produced by the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC). Coleman stated that the UNMC laboratory had used probabilistic genotyping soft- ware entitled “STRmix” to analyze DNA samples related to his case. He alleged that the STRmix software could produce misleading results and that therefore, the DNA report prepared using STRmix was irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial. The district court held a hearing on Coleman’s motion in limine related to the DNA report, and the State presented tes- timony by Joseph Choquette, a DNA analyst employed by the UNMC laboratory. Choquette testified regarding the process  - 737 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 by which DNA is extracted and analyzed in the laboratory. He also testified regarding STRmix, which he described as a program used in the laboratory “to help generate a statistical calculation in the form of a likelihood ratio” comparing the scenario that a DNA profile originated from a known suspect to the scenario that it originated from an unknown, unrelated individual. Choquette testified that use of STRmix was a stan- dard and accepted scientific practice in DNA laboratories. Choquette analyzed three DNA samples taken from items related to this case: (1) the six fired shell casings that were found at the scene of the shooting, (2) the textured surfaces of the handgun found in the search of the house near the park, and (3) an extended magazine and several live rounds that were removed from the handgun. Choquette compared the DNA samples to known DNA profiles of 11 individu- als, including Coleman, who were suspects in the investiga- tion. The district court received a copy of Choquette’s DNA report as evidence for purposes of the hearing, and Choquette referred to the report for his testimony regarding the DNA testing results. Regarding the DNA sample from the six fired shell cas- ings, Choquette testified that the sample generated a partial DNA profile consistent with originating from a mixture of two individuals and that Coleman was not excluded as a contribu- tor to the DNA profile. Choquette determined that the DNA profile was at least 28 times more likely to have originated from Coleman and one unknown, unrelated individual than from two unknown, unrelated individuals, which Choquette testified was support that Coleman could be included as a contributor to the DNA mixture. Choquette testified that the testing did not support inclusion for any of the 10 other indi- viduals whose DNA was part of the comparison. Regarding the DNA sample from the exterior surface of the handgun, Choquette testified that the sample generated a DNA profile consistent with originating from a mixture of four individuals and that no conclusions could be made  - 738 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 regarding Coleman as a contributor to the mixture. Choquette testified that two of the other individuals—Zynelle Carter and Markezz Carter—were not excluded as contributors and that there was support that both could be included as contributors to the DNA mixture because it was at least 390,000 times more likely that the DNA profile originated from Zynelle Carter and three unknown, unrelated individuals than from four unknown, unrelated individuals and at least 29,600 times more likely that the DNA profile originated from Markezz Carter and three unknown, unrelated individuals than from four unknown, unrelated individuals. Choquette’s report indi- cated that it was 4.65 billion times more likely that the DNA profile originated from Zynelle Carter, Markezz Carter, and two unknown, unrelated individuals than from four unknown, unrelated individuals. Choquette testified that none of the remaining individuals who were part of the comparison could be included. Regarding the DNA sample from the magazine and live rounds, Choquette testified that the sample generated a partial DNA profile that was consistent with originating from a mix- ture of two individuals and that Coleman was not excluded as a contributor to the DNA profile. Choquette determined that the DNA profile was at least 8,000 times more likely to have originated from Coleman and one unknown, unre- lated individual than from two unknown, unrelated individuals, which Choquette testified was support that Coleman could be included as a contributor to the DNA mixture. Choquette testi- fied that the testing did not support inclusion for any of the 10 other individuals whose DNA was part of the comparison. Coleman cross-examined Choquette regarding DNA testing procedures and his testing related to this case. Among other information elicited during the cross-examination, Choquette testified that the partial DNA profile for the sample from the six shell casings included genetic information from 8 of 24 loci and that the partial DNA profile for the sample from the  - 739 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 magazine and live rounds included genetic information from 12 of 24 loci. After the hearing, the district court overruled Coleman’s motion in limine related to the DNA evidence. Choquette testified at the trial. Prior to Choquette’s testi- mony, Coleman renewed his motion in limine and the district court overruled the renewed motion. Coleman again renewed the motion in limine after Choquette’s direct testimony and prior to his cross-examination, and the court again overruled the renewed motion in limine. Coleman did not object when the DNA report was offered into evidence. The court ulti- mately determined that a redacted version of the DNA report would go back to the jury. The redacted DNA report did not include a sentence that had been included in the DNA report admitted at the motion in limine hearing. That sentence stated that no conclusions could be made regarding Coleman as a contributor to the DNA mixture in the sample from the exte- rior surface of the handgun. Choquette’s testimony regarding the contents of the report was generally consistent with his testimony at the hearing on the motion in limine, except that Choquette did not testify that no conclusions could be made regarding Coleman as a contributor to the DNA mixture in the sample from the exterior surface of the handgun. 1 Additional portions of Choquette’s testimony are set forth as relevant to our analysis below. Other Evidence at Trial In addition to the evidence discussed above related to Coleman’s motions in limine, the State presented evidence at trial, including testimony by law enforcement investigators and other witnesses. Holley’s mother testified that Holley was 17 years old at the time he died on November 8, 2023. Holley had been 1 See State v. Johnson, 290 Neb. 862, 862 N.W.2d 757 (2015) (testimony that no conclusion could be drawn regarding DNA testing is irrelevant and inadmissible).  - 740 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 diagnosed with psychosis and was being treated with medi- cations. Because of his mental condition, “[H]e would just wander around and wouldn’t know where he was.” At around 6 p.m. on November 8, Holley’s mother was contacted by an acquaintance who told her she had seen Holley wandering in her neighborhood. Holley’s mother later learned that Holley had been shot and that he died at the hospital. A forensic pathologist testified that she had performed an autopsy on Holley and that she determined the cause of death to be gun- shot wounds to the head and neck. An OPD officer testified that on November 8, 2023, he and his partner were patrolling an area near 18th and Spencer Streets when they heard gunshots. While traveling toward the direction of the gunshots, they received additional information that led them to a small park near 18th and Spencer Streets. Upon arriving at the park, the officers located a male on the ground near a gazebo and determined that he was a gunshot victim, based on blood near his shoulder and shell casings on the ground near him. After the victim was taken away by ambulance, the officers stayed at the park to secure the scene. They also worked to secure a house at 1816 Spencer Street, which was across the street from the park to the north, based on information that suspects had run to the house. An OPD forensic technician testified that on November 8, 2023, she worked on the investigation of the scene at 18th and Spencer Streets. While waiting to enter the park, she col- lected surveillance video from a house located near the park at 1824 Spencer Street. The video from 1824 Spencer Street was received into evidence. The forensic technician collected evi- dence from the park, including six spent shell casings that were found in the same general area of the park. The shell casings were received into evidence. A criminalist employed in the OPD forensics unit testified that she took part in the investigation around 18th and Spencer Streets on November 8, 2023. In addition to investigating the scene in the park, she took photographs of both the exterior  - 741 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 and the interior of the house at 1816 Spencer Street, which was of interest because suspects had been seen running there after the shooting. The photographs she took inside the house included several photographs showing bedrooms on the upper level and evidence collected from the bedrooms. The photo- graphs were received into evidence. In the east bedroom, the criminalist photographed a backpack, a tablet computer that was inside the backpack, and a school schedule for Coleman that was inside a pocket attached to the tablet computer. Inside a small crawl space in the southwest bedroom, she photo- graphed a shirt that had a handgun wrapped inside of it. The criminalist photographed the handgun after it was unwrapped from the shirt, and she also photographed an extended maga- zine that was removed from the handgun. The handgun, which was labeled as a “Glock 30,” and the magazine, which con- tained live rounds, were received into evidence. A forensic technician employed by OPD who specialized in firearms examination testified that she performed ballistics testing and comparisons related to the Holley shooting inves- tigation. She compared test firings of the handgun found at 1816 Spencer Street to the shell casings found in the park, and she concluded that all six shell casings had been ejected from the handgun. Ronald Harlan testified that he was at the park at 18th and Spencer Streets when Holley was shot on November 8, 2023. Harlan knew Coleman because they had gone to high school and played football together. On November 8, Harlan and two others went to a yellow house where Markezz Carter and Zynelle Carter lived near 18th and Spencer Streets. When Harlan pulled up to the house, he saw two men running from the park across the street, and he saw Holley in the park. Harlan heard some people yelling at Holley. Harlan drove around the park and then parked behind the “yellow house.” After Harlan parked, he and a group of eight others, including Coleman and Markezz Carter, walked to the park. Harlan testified that their purpose in walking to the park was to confront Holley.  - 742 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 Harlan testified that he and the others “jump[ed]” Holley and fought him as a group. The fight stopped and Harlan began running, after Coleman yelled either “‘[b]ack up, back up, or watch out, watch out.’” Harlan testified that he “believe[d]” Coleman shot Holley and that he saw it out of the corner of his eye as he was running. When asked again whom he saw shoot Holley, Harlan testified that it was “T.C.,” whom he confirmed to be Coleman. The group next ran back toward the yellow house, and Harlan and a few others ran to his vehicle. Harlan testified that he was interviewed by police a couple of times after the incident and that he was not truthful in his first interview and was partially truthful in his second inter- view. Harlan had been charged as an accessory in this case because he had originally lied to the police that he was not at the park and that he was at another location at the time Holley was shot. An OPD investigator testified that in Harlan’s second interview, he identified a person other than Coleman as the person who shot Holley, but Harlan laughed after he identified that person, and the investigator testified that he did not take the identification as being serious, believing instead that Harlan was joking. Harlan testified that although he was hopeful his testimony in Coleman’s case would be helpful to his own case, he had not been promised any help in his case for his testimony against Coleman. Rashad Thorpe testified that he had known Coleman since they were children. Although Thorpe and Coleman had not been in contact at the time, in December 2023, Coleman reached out to Thorpe over the phone for a brief call and told Thorpe that he felt guilty about something he had done and that he had “messed up.” Thorpe next encountered Coleman in May 2024 when Thorpe was in jail on charges of rob- bery and burglary. An OPD investigator testified that he had obtained documentation from “Douglas County Corrections” that Thorpe and Coleman had been in the same housing unit from May 23 to 27, 2024. Thorpe testified that when he and Coleman were in the same jail unit, Coleman told Thorpe that  - 743 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 he and some others had fought Holley and that he had shot Holley multiple times. Thorpe testified that Coleman said that he and the others had recognized Holley as the brother of “Fat Kai,” who was a member of a gang, and that the attack on Holley “was get back” for a person who had been shot and killed. Thorpe testified Coleman said that Holley was not “a big gang member” and that “[Coleman] only did it because it was Fat Kai’s brother.” Thorpe told law enforce- ment what Coleman had said because he “couldn’t sleep,” and he testified that he had not been promised anything regarding his testimony. One of the State’s final witnesses was Thomas Ewin, OPD’s lead detective on the investigation of Holley’s shooting death. Ewin testified that as part of the investigation at the scene, he and other investigators reviewed surveillance video obtained from the house at 1824 Spencer Street. From the video, they “[saw] that numerous individuals went into the park, . . . heard the shots, and then [saw that] from there numerous individu- als ran to the north.” They next saw “th[o]se individuals run towards the direction of 1816 Spencer Street,” which drew the investigators’ attention to that address. During Ewin’s testimony, the State played the surveillance video from 1824 Spencer Street that had been admitted during the forensic tech- nician’s testimony. Ewin testified regarding what was shown and heard on the video related to the investigation, includ- ing that the video showed Holley walking past 1824 Spencer Street and going toward a gazebo in the park approximately 10 minutes before the shooting, that it showed Harlan’s vehicle arriving at the scene, and that it showed people running across the street between 1816 Spencer Street and the park. Ewin testified that after viewing the video, investigators’ “interest was focused on the house” at 1816 Spencer Street. Officers secured the house and received permission from an occupant, Natisha Carter, to perform a “protective sweep” of the house. Ewin testified that Natisha Carter lived in the house with others, including Markezz Carter and Zynelle Carter.  - 744 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 Markezz Carter and three others who were in the house were considered persons of interest and were taken in for question- ing. Zynelle Carter was not one of the people taken for ques- tioning. Ewin took part in a search of the house after a search warrant was obtained. Ewin testified that in the upstairs portion of the house, the east bedroom belonged to Markezz Carter and the southwest bedroom belonged to Zynelle Carter. In the east bedroom, investigators found a backpack that contained a “school tablet with a schedule on the back of it, with the name of . . . Coleman affixed to the school student schedule, along with an additional student schedule as well to . . . Coleman inside that backpack.” Ewin testified that the “Glock 30 firearm with a high-capacity magazine attached to it or inserted into it” was found in a crawl space in the south- west bedroom. Ewin testified that investigators collected DNA swabs from 11 persons of interest in the case, including Coleman, Harlan, Markezz Carter, and Zynelle Carter, and delivered the swabs for testing at UNMC. When collecting the DNA swab from Coleman, investigators also collected Coleman’s cell phone, and the cell phone was given to Meisinger, who found the video that was received into evidence during Meisinger’s testi- mony. Ewin testified that the video showed Coleman “holding an apparent firearm with an apparent high-capacity magazine” and that he provided the video to Walther to compare the fire- arm in the video to the handgun that was in evidence. After the State rested its case, Coleman informed the district court that he would not testify in his defense and that he had no other evidence to present in his defense. After jury instructions and closing arguments, the case was submitted to the jury. Convictions and Sentencing The jury found Coleman guilty of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony. The dis- trict court accepted the verdicts and found Coleman guilty of the charges.  - 745 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 At the sentencing hearing, the district court stated that it had ordered and reviewed the presentence investigation report. The court heard arguments from Coleman and the State. At the beginning of his argument, Coleman’s attorney noted that the presentence investigation report was “pretty thin . . . because [he] advised [Coleman] not to participate” so that Coleman would not “say anything that would affect his appeal in any way.” Coleman’s argument focused on his being age 17 at the time of the offense and the potential for reha- bilitation. The State’s argument focused on the brutality and senselessness of the shooting and the impact on the victim’s family. Holley’s father also addressed the court. The district court began its comments by speaking gener- ally regarding the prevalence of gun violence among young people, and the court stated, “[T]he people in these kids’ lives are gonna have to stand up and start calling police and tell- ing them my kid[’]s got a gun, come over.” The court also referenced specifics of this case, stating, “I just can’t fathom what goes through your mind when you have 8 to 10 of your buddies assaulting this special needs kid because he’s in your park” and “when you shoo everybody back to shooting six times in the face.” The court described the shooting in this case as “the most cowardly act [it had] ever seen . . . [t]o shoot a kid who’s being beaten on the ground because he’s in the wrong park.” The district court referenced Coleman’s age, stating, “[H]ad you committed this crime less than one month later[,] your sentence would be life without parole,” and “[i]t would be the easiest sentence I ever give.” The court then stated that because “you did it three weeks before you turned 18, I’m required to give you a sentence the minimum of 40 years to life.” The court stated that it considered mitigating factors, including Coleman’s age, and that it considered the specific mitigating factors contained in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02 (Reissue 2016), which a court must consider when a person is “convicted of a Class IA felony for an offense committed  - 746 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 when such person was under the age of eighteen years.” The court stated that it also considered the factors set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2260 (Supp. 2025), “as well as [Coleman’s] age, mentality, education, experience, social and cultural background[, and] [p]ast criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct[;] [t]he motivation for the offense[;] [t]he nature of the offense[; and] [t]he amount, if any, [of] violence involved in the commission of the offense.” The district court stated that in determining Coleman’s sen- tences, it considered “the pre-sentence report, police reports, and probation’s investigation.” The court thereafter sentenced Coleman to imprisonment for 80 years to life for first degree murder and for 40 to 50 years for use of a deadly weapon (firearm) to commit a felony, and it ordered the sentences to run consecutively. Coleman appeals his convictions and sentences. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR Coleman assigns that the district court erred in overruling his motions in limine and in admitting into evidence (1) “tes- timony involving . . . a video of Coleman holding the alleged murder weapon” and (2) the “DNA report, along with the testi- mony around the report.” Coleman also assigns that there was not sufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the district court imposed excessive sentences. STANDARD OF REVIEW [1,2] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admis- sibility. 2 Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evi- dentiary question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an 2 State v. Kruger, 320 Neb. 361, 27 N.W.3d 398 (2025).  - 747 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 abuse of discretion. 3 Because the exercise of judicial discretion is implicit in determinations of admissibility under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. 4 [3] In reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of the evidence, whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An appel- late court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact. 5 The relevant question is whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favor- able to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reason- able doubt. 6 [4] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 7 An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreason- able or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason, and evidence. 8 ANALYSIS Evidentiary Rulings on Cell Phone Video and Handgun Comparison Coleman first assigns error to the admission of “testimony involving . . . a video of Coleman holding the alleged murder weapon.” Coleman’s assignment of error refers to testimony, which we understand to be Walther’s testimony regarding his comparison of the handgun in the cell phone video to the 3 Id. 4 Id. 5 State v. Evans, 321 Neb. 841, 37 N.W.3d 641 (2026). 6 Id. 7 State v. Flores, 321 Neb. 284, 34 N.W.3d 106 (2026). 8 Id.  - 748 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 322 Nebraska Reports STATE v. COLEMAN Cite as 322 Neb. 731 handgun in evidence in this case. While Coleman’s assign- ment of error refers specifically to testimony about the video, Coleman’s objections at trial and his arguments on appeal also challenge the admission of the cell phone video itself, which was admitted and played for the jury during Meisinger’s testimony. Coleman argues that the cell phone video and Walther’s comparison of the handgun in the video to the handgun in evidence was irrelevant and was unfairly prejudicial. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-401 (Reissue 2016), “[r]elevant evidence means evidence having any tendency