State v. Evans

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 07/24/2026 08:10 AM CDT - 841 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Raymond Evans, appellant. ___ N.W.3d ___ Filed July 24, 2026. No. S-25-209. 1. Trial: Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error. A trial court is vested with considerable discretion in passing on motions for mistrial, and an appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s decision whether to grant a motion for mistrial unless the court has abused its discretion. 2. 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. 3. Rules of Evidence. In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by such rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admissibility. 4. Rules of Evidence: Other Acts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will review for abuse of discretion a trial court’s evidentiary rulings on the admissibility of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) (Cum. Supp. 2024), or under the inextricably intertwined exception to § 27-404(2). 5. Judges: Words and Phrases. A judicial abuse of discretion exists when the reasons or rulings of a trial judge are clearly untenable, unfairly depriving a litigant of a substantial right and denying just results in mat- ters submitted for disposition.  - 842 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 6. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. Whether a claim of inef- fective assistance of trial counsel may be determined on direct appeal is a question of law. 7. ____: ____. In reviewing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel on direct appeal, an appellate court decides only whether the undisputed facts contained within the record are sufficient to conclusively deter- mine whether counsel did or did not provide effective assistance and whether the defendant was or was not prejudiced by counsel’s alleged deficient performance. 8. Rules of Evidence: Testimony: Juries. Under Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-701 and 27-702 (Reissue 2016), testimony that usurps the jury’s role in mak- ing credibility determinations is not helpful and thus is improper opin- ion testimony. 9. Witnesses: Testimony. It is improper for a witness to testify whether another person may or may not have been telling the truth in a spe- cific instance. 10. Trial: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Testimony: Juries. It is espe- cially problematic when an officer testifies at trial that the defendant is untruthful, because such testimony carries with it the imprimatur of the government that can induce improper reliance by a jury. 11. Trial: Rules of Evidence: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Extrajudicial Statements. Statements on veracity by law enforcement officials within a recorded pretrial interrogation played for the jury at trial are neither categorically admissible nor categorically inadmissible and are to be analyzed under the ordinary rules of evidence. 12. Criminal Law: Motions for Mistrial. A mistrial is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during trial of such a nature that its damaging effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruc- tion to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial. 13. Motions for Mistrial: Juries: Appeal and Error. Where a motion for mistrial is premised on adducing evidence that violates an order in limine, an appellate court will consider that the trial judge was in the best position to assess the potential impact of such evidence on the jury. 14. Motions for Mistrial: Proof: Appeal and Error. To prove error predi- cated on the failure to grant a mistrial, a defendant faces a higher thresh- old than merely showing a possibility of prejudice. 15. Motions for Mistrial: Judges: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews rulings on motions for mistrial for an abuse of discretion, and the deferential standard stems in part from the recognition that the trial judge is often better situated than a reviewing court to assess the atmosphere of the trial and the impact of certain evidence or events.  - 843 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 16. Appeal and Error. To be considered by an appellate court, the party asserting an alleged error must both specifically assign and specifically argue the error in the party’s initial brief. 17. Rules of Evidence: Other Acts: Words and Phrases. Though difficult to define, character, for purposes of § 27-404(2) (Cum. Supp. 2024), has been described as the generalized disposition or tendency to act in a particular way in all the varying situations of life, caused by something internal to the actor that arises from that person’s moral being. 18. Rules of Evidence: Other Acts. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404(2) (Cum. Supp. 2024) does not apply to evidence of a defendant’s other crimes or bad acts if the evidence is inextricably intertwined with the charged crime. 19. Witnesses: Testimony: Appeal and Error. A continuing objection to a witness’ testimony does not preserve the alleged error for testimony by that witness before the objection was made. 20. Trial: Testimony: Appeal and Error. Though whether an error is harm- less must be a fact-specific inquiry in light of the totality of the record, the admission of testimony objected to is ordinarily not prejudicial error when such testimony is substantially identical to testimony admitted without objection. 21. Criminal Law: Evidence: Other Acts. Other acts are acts not part of the events giving rise to the present charges, whereas acts that are inextricably intertwined with the present charges form part of the factual setting of the crime, are so blended or connected to the charged crime that proof of the charged crime will necessarily require proof of the other crimes or bad acts, or are necessary for the prosecution to present a coherent picture of the charged crime. 22. Rules of Evidence: Other Acts. The State is entitled to present a coher- ent picture of the facts of the crime charged, and evidence of other conduct that forms an integral part of the crime charged is not rendered inadmissible under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404 (Cum. Supp. 2024) merely because the acts are criminal but have not been charged. 23. Evidence: Other Acts. The relevancy of intrinsically intertwined con- duct does not rely on propensity reasoning. 24. Evidence: Other Acts: Intent. Evidence of previous discord between the victim and the defendant is clearly material to issues of motive and intent. 25. Verdicts: Appeal and Error. The inquiry in a harmless error analysis is whether the actual guilty verdict rendered was surely unattributable to the error. 26. Criminal Law: Legislature: Weapons. The Legislature’s purpose in creating a separate offense of using a weapon in the commission of a felony was to discourage individuals from carrying deadly weapons  - 844 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 while they commit felonies in order to prevent the threat of violence and accompanying danger to human life present whenever one has a deadly weapon within one’s immediate control during the commission of a felony. 27. Criminal Law: Statutes: Weapons: Intent. The statutorily enumerated weapons are considered deadly weapons per se, when they satisfy the definitions for those items, whereas whether any “other device, instru- ment, material, or substance,” as stated in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-109(8) (Reissue 2016), constitutes a deadly weapon depends on the manner in which it was used or intended to be used. 28. Weapons. A trier of fact can infer from the nature of the victim’s inju- ries that a deadly weapon was used, without determining the precise identity of the device, instrument, material, or substance. 29. Evidence: Appeal and Error. An appellate court’s standard of review directs the appellate court to evaluate the evidence that was actually before the fact finder, rather than ponder potentially incriminating facts that were lacking. 30. Convictions: Weapons: Intent: Circumstantial Evidence. So long as there is sufficient circumstantial evidence that any device, instru- ment, material, or substance was used to commit a felony, and that such device, instrument, material, or substance was capable of producing death or serious bodily injury in the manner it was used or intended to be used, then there is sufficient evidence to support a conviction for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. 31. Effectiveness of Counsel: Proof. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984), the defendant must show that his or her counsel’s performance was deficient and that this deficient per- formance actually prejudiced the defendant’s defense. 32. ____: ____. To show that counsel’s performance was deficient, a defendant must show that counsel’s performance did not equal that of a lawyer with ordinary training and skill in criminal law. 33. ____: ____. To show prejudice in a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, the defendant must demonstrate a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s deficient performance, the result of the proceeding would have been different. 34. Proof: Words and Phrases. A reasonable probability is a probability sufficient to undermine confidence in the outcome. 35. Effectiveness of Counsel: Appeal and Error. In determining whether there is a reasonable probability that any deficient performance of trial counsel would have resulted in a different outcome in the proceeding,  - 845 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 an appellate court may properly consider the strength of the admissible evidence relating to the controverted issues in the case. 36. ____: ____. An ineffective assistance of counsel claim will not be addressed on direct appeal if it requires examination of facts not con- tained in the record and, thus, an evidentiary hearing. Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Shelly R. Stratman, Judge. Affirmed. Kenneth Jacobs, of Hug and Jacobs, L.L.C., for appellant. Michael T. Hilgers, Attorney General, and Nathan A. Liss for appellee. Funke, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, Papik, Freudenberg, Bergevin, and Vaughn, JJ. Freudenberg, J. I. INTRODUCTION Raymond Evans was convicted by a jury of first degree mur- der and use of a deadly weapon (not a firearm) to commit a fel- ony. Evans, represented by new counsel on appeal, asserts that (1) the district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial, (2) the State’s evidence was not sufficient to sustain a convic- tion for use of a deadly weapon (not a firearm) to commit a felony, (3) the district court abused its discretion in allowing the State to present other bad acts evidence, and (4) his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to properly investigate and cross-examine the victim’s ex-husband. We affirm. II. BACKGROUND Evans’ charges arose after he allegedly bludgeoned to death his then-girlfriend at her apartment in Omaha, Nebraska, and dumped her body in a field outside of Lincoln, Nebraska. At the conclusion of an 11-day jury trial, Evans was found guilty of both first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon (not a firearm) to commit a felony. Evans was sentenced to life imprisonment pursuant to the first degree murder conviction and 40 to 50 years’ imprisonment pursuant to the use of a  - 846 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 deadly weapon (not a firearm) to commit a felony conviction. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively. 1. Evidence Presented at Trial The basic facts adduced at trial showed that Cecilia Perez met Evans through a “dating app” in the fall of 2022. She was killed approximately 1 year later, in November 2023. Evans was “a dog walker and an MMA fighter” who was living in Lincoln when he met Cecilia. Cecilia lived in Omaha and worked as a nurse at a local nursing home, primarily work- ing shifts on the weekends. Cecilia had three children from two previous relationships. Two of her children were born from her relationship with Antonio Ramirez. That relationship ended approximately 10 years before the events in this case. The other child was born from her relationship with Adam Jones, whom Cecilia mar- ried in Jamaica in 2015, but never filed paperwork in the United States to be legally married. Jones and Cecilia split up in the summer of 2022, when she moved to an apartment at Woodcrest Plaza (Woodcrest apartment) in Omaha. When Cecilia and Evans met, her oldest child, N.R.P., was living with her and the younger two children split time between Cecilia’s and Jones’ homes. At that time, Cecilia was driving a vehicle owned by Jones. Evans moved into Cecilia’s Woodcrest apartment in May 2023, after they had been dating for several months. Cecilia struggled with an alcohol abuse disorder, and, in March 2023, Child Protective Services became involved with Cecilia’s children due in part to Cecilia’s drinking. As a result of the involvement of Child Protective Services, Cecilia’s two youngest children were not allowed to live with Cecilia at the Woodcrest apartment and Cecilia had to have supervised visits outside of the Woodcrest apartment. N.R.P. moved out of the apartment after Evans moved in, due to her constant arguments and confrontations with Evans. N.R.P. went to live with a friend’s mother, Kathryn Diaz.  - 847 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 N.R.P. testified that Evans did not have his own vehicle and used Cecilia’s vehicle every day. Jones testified that when he learned Evans was the primary user of the vehicle he owned and was allowing Cecilia to drive, he took it back. In October 2023, Cecilia purchased a red 2013 GMC Acadia from Automart 150 in Council Bluffs, Iowa. After her murder, the vehicle still had paper dealer plates showing it had been pur- chased from Automart 150. Cecilia was last seen by someone other than Evans on Friday, November 17, 2023. That evening, Cecilia had a scheduled supervised visit with her youngest child. Cecilia arrived at the supervised visit at 6 p.m. Marquetta McGee, Cecilia’s supervised visitation specialist, described Cecilia’s demeanor as quiet and “off.” Cecilia’s mannerisms concerned McGee, who suspected Cecilia may have been under the influ- ence of alcohol. When Cecilia admitted to being under the influence of alcohol, McGee ended the visit. McGee suggested that Cecilia “get a ride” and asked that Cecilia text her when she got home safely. McGee reported that Cecilia was crying after this conversation and that Cecilia texted her twice that night, with the second time being around 11 p.m. According to McGee, the second text asked what time the visit ended, which McGee found to be “weird” and “confusing.” Cecilia was scheduled to work on both Saturday, November 18, 2023, and Sunday, November 19, but did not show up for work either day. Cecilia called on Saturday morning to say she was not going to be at work. Barbara Renken answered the call. Renken testified that Cecilia sounded like “she had been crying for some time, or had a really bad head cold.” This was the last time anyone other than Evans reported seeing or hear- ing from Cecilia. On Sunday morning, Regina Yokwe, a charge nurse, answered a call that was reportedly from Cecilia, who said she would not be going to work that day. According to Yokwe, however, the caller had a “male voice.” Yokwe testified she  - 848 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 confronted the caller about sounding like a man, and the caller immediately hung up. (a) Initial Missing Persons Investigation In the early evening of Tuesday, November 21, 2023, Emma Wineinger, Cecilia’s younger sister, called the 911 emergency dispatch service to report that Cecilia was missing. After police officers Brandon Fender and Christopher Overton met with Wineinger and Brandy Perez, another of Cecilia’s sisters, the officers made their way to Cecilia’s Woodcrest apartment. Officers were on the lookout for Cecilia’s Acadia. When the officers arrived at the apartment, they noted that the Acadia was not in the parking lot. The officers entered the apartment building and knocked on the door of Cecilia’s apartment but there was no answer. Overton began checking with neighbors inside the apartment building and spoke with a neighbor who lived immediately above Cecilia’s apartment, who said he had concerns about a dog in Cecilia’s apartment barking a few days before. Fender and Overton were continuing their investigation, when Evans entered the apartment building, approached the officers, and said he needed to talk with them. Evans invited Fender into the apartment to talk while Overton remained in the hall. Fender described Evans as “very forthcoming” during this initial interaction, noting that he did not have to ask followup questions before Evans continued providing information. Evans told Fender that Cecilia had planned to meet up with her friend, Monica Durand, the prior weekend and that he had not seen or heard from Cecilia since. Before the officers left the apartment, Fender called Durand, who informed Fender that she had not seen Cecilia in the recent past, was unaware of her whereabouts, and had no plans to meet up with her during the prior weekend. When Fender and Overton left the Woodcrest apartment, they noticed that Cecilia’s Acadia was parked outside.  - 849 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 (b) November 21, 2023, Initial Search of Woodcrest Apartment Later that same night, Fender and Overton returned to the Woodcrest apartment with their supervisor, Sgt. David Preston, Jr., to do a check of the apartment to see if Cecilia was inside. Preston talked with Evans in the living room of the apartment while Fender and Overton searched the apartment in areas large enough for a person to fit in, which Preston described as “standard protocol for missing persons reports.” Overton observed blood on the wall and on a television in the master bedroom. Fender observed blood spatter on the wall in the closet. Fender also noticed the carpet in the master bedroom had differing colors “from a darker brown to almost a white color,” which he attributed to cleaning. Fender noted there was no bedding or sheets on the bed in the master bedroom, but Preston testified there were two pillows with pillowcases. Preston described Evans as cooperative during their con- versation in the living room but that he gave information that did not “seem like [it] fit the situation.” Evans voluntarily described where he was when asked about the last time he saw Cecilia. Evans was also “pushing” his phone on Preston, showing him text messages between him and Cecilia, rather than providing information about Cecilia and places she may be or often “hang[s] out.” Before leaving, the officers did a brief check of the Acadia, which Evans unlocked for them. The officers did not find any- thing of note, but Fender observed that the vehicle was very clean inside. (c) Cecilia’s Body Found and Autopsy Cecilia’s body was found near the intersection of 98th Street and Havelock Avenue on the outskirts of Lincoln on the afternoon of Tuesday, November 21, 2023. Officers observed that the body was wrapped in several items, including a “mer- maid comforter” and a black plastic trash bag. Law enforce- ment surmised that the body had been dumped in the location  - 850 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 very recently, because it lacked apparent decomposition and was dry even though it had rained in that area up until Monday night. Law enforcement also noted the presence of tire tracks pulled over toward the side of the gravel road adjacent to where the body had been found. Later testing and analysis showed that Cecilia’s Acadia was a possible source of the tire tracks. Dr. Erin Linde, a forensic pathologist, performed the autopsy on Cecilia’s body. She first observed that the outer layer of materials wrapped around the body consisted of a mermaid comforter and black plastic trash bag, with clear tape wrapped around. Underneath the outer layer, Linde observed a black fabric material, which Linde described as a “satin-like microfiber sheet.” Under the black sheet, Cecilia was clothed in sweatpants and a T-shirt. Linde performed a series of x rays and a full external exam- ination of Cecilia’s body in order to determine the cause of her death, which was found to be extensive blunt force injuries. X rays showed that Cecilia had a fracture in her left forearm but no other visible fractures or foreign objects or projectiles inside her body. Upon further internal inspection, Linde dis- covered fractures to Cecilia’s spine and ribs. During the exter- nal examination, Linde noted extensive bruising on Cecilia’s head, arms, and legs, as well as some bruising on her torso and back. Linde also observed that Cecilia’s nose was broken and that she had various abrasions and lacerations in many places on her body, including her head, face, arms, and legs. Linde noted that many of the bruises and abrasions on Cecilia’s body were curved or circular in shape, which she found suggestive of a “round-type object” being used to strike the skin repeatedly. Additionally, there were several paired, clawlike injuries on Cecilia’s body, including on her thigh just below her hip. Photographs of Cecilia’s body entered into evi- dence at trial showed the curve-shaped bruises and abrasions, as well as the paired, clawlike injuries.  - 851 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 When asked about the nature of Cecilia’s wounds and what may have caused them, Linde explained that “the paired inju- ries, the rectangular shape, the round patterned contusions and abrasions . . . we’re seeing would suggest more of a hammer- type object, including . . . a claw-type hammer, which has those paired tong or prongs at the back.” Linde opined that the injuries on Cecilia’s hands, forearms, and legs appeared to be defensive, where she appeared to be attempting to keep an “object” from striking her, whether it was a knife or “some other object.” Overall, Linde testified that Cecilia’s blunt force injuries were unlike anything she had seen in the 3,100 autopsies she had performed; the injuries to Cecilia’s tissue were similar to a pedestrian being hit by a vehicle. Linde described the tissue under Cecilia’s arms and legs as “fluid-like,” indicating suf- ficient, repetitive blunt force trauma to break down the tissue. Linde opined there was likely repetitive force that caused the nature of Cecilia’s injuries and ultimately her death. (d) Sgt. David Hinsley’s Interview With Evans On Wednesday, November 22, 2023, the day after Cecilia’s body was found and the same day as the autopsy, Evans, not knowing a body had been found, went to a cellular ser- vice provider’s retail location at the suggestion of Cecilia’s aunt, Dawn Van Sloun, to access Cecilia’s phone records and potentially find information concerning her whereabouts. When Evans was unable to get that information, he called the missing persons report line and spoke with a sergeant, who, at the request of the detectives investigating the murder, asked Evans if he would be interested in reporting to the Omaha Police Department’s headquarters for an interview. Evans agreed to do so. Evans arrived at police headquarters in downtown Omaha in Cecilia’s Acadia. Hinsley, before commencing the inter- view, assigned a detective to go to Automart 150 to get physi- cal access to the “GPS” records for the Acadia, and Hinsley  - 852 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 learned that the Acadia’s GPS records showed the vehicle had been in Lincoln at 4:17 a.m. the day before, Tuesday, November 21, 2023, near the intersection of 98th Street and Havelock Avenue, where Cecilia’s body was found. With this information in mind, Hinsley began interviewing Evans. A video recording of the interview was played for the jury, with certain statements redacted. The redacted video was almost 4½ hours long. In the redacted video played for the jury, Hinsley began the interview by having an informal conversation with Evans wherein Evans was very forthcom- ing with information from his phone, including texts from Cecilia’s phone, and with information about his going to his grandmother’s house over the weekend and Cecilia’s wanting to meet up with Durand on Sunday. Evans waived his rights and then walked Hinsley through his version of the events of the previous weekend, using his phone to show texts and phone calls with Cecilia and her friends and family. Evans told Hinsley that he and Cecilia were at the apartment essen- tially all weekend, except for when Evans went to his grand- mother’s house in northeast Omaha on Sunday afternoon. Evans described the weekend as normal and denied that there were any arguments between him and Cecilia, even when Hinsley told Evans a neighbor had reported hearing an argu- ment on the prior Sunday. Evans explained he and Cecilia had a conversation about him getting a job but adamantly denied having an argument or fight. Evans talked at length about his poor relationship with Cecilia’s family and friends, including her daughter N.R.P. Evans also discussed Jones a great deal, detailing how Jones’ relationship with Cecilia ended, how Jones allegedly told Evans that Cecilia was probably cheating on him and had been kidnapped, and how the last known location of Cecilia’s phone was near Jones’ house and workplace. Evans explained that Cecilia would sometimes meet up with other men for money, which was acceptable to him if she was honest about it.  - 853 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 Evans confirmed that no one else besides him or Cecilia had been driving the Acadia and that, since Cecilia had been miss- ing, he was the only one who had the vehicle. Evans explained there was only one set of keys to the Acadia, which he pos- sessed. This was corroborated by the detective who went to Automart 150 and learned that Cecilia was given one set of keys, while the dealership retained the other until the vehicle was paid off. Evans told Hinsley the last time he was in Lincoln was the previous Thursday. When Hinsley asked Evans to tell him about his trip to Lincoln the day prior, Tuesday, November 21, 2023, Evans denied making any such trip. At that point, Hinsley informed Evans of the GPS on the Acadia and how it “pinged” near 98th Street and Havelock Avenue at 4:17 a.m. on the previous day. Evans denied being at that area at that time and said he was at home. Evans said his phone would show his location was at the apartment at 4:17 a.m. He could not explain the Acadia GPS information. During the interview, a search warrant had been obtained and a search of the Woodcrest apartment was conducted. Hinsley informed Evans of the search and that castoff, high- velocity blood spatter, was observed at the apartment. Evans said nothing had happened at the apartment and asked where his DNA was in relation to the blood. When Hinsley asked about a ring found on the sink of the master bathroom during the search, Evans said there was no blood on the ring. Hinsley informed Evans there was blood observed on the ring, to which Evans explained that his fingers were not swollen and that they would have been had he punched Cecilia while wearing the ring. Hinsley told Evans that Cecilia’s body had been located and showed Evans a photograph of Cecilia’s body as it was found in the field outside of Lincoln. Evans did not react to the photograph and continued to deny that he had gone to Lincoln the day before. Evans also continued to deny that he hit Cecilia while wearing the ring or anything else.  - 854 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 Evans again emphasized that the location information from his phone would not match up with where Cecilia’s body was found. When Hinsley returned to the interview after a short break, Evans was visibly emotional and made statements such as, “[t]here is no future,” “I don’t have a life after here,” “[i]t’s over with,” and “[m]y life is over.” Evans also said he needed a few days to think about things before he could say what happened. Hinsley ended the interview after Evans asked for an attorney. The redactions from the video had been made pursuant to Evans’ oral motion to redact portions where marijuana use, past domestic violence allegations, 911 calls alleging Evans beat dogs, and DNA evidence were discussed. Evans also sought to redact statements made by Hinsley about Evans’ being untruthful or being guilty. The court agreed to redact ref- erences to past domestic violence allegations, beating dogs, and Evans’ truthfulness. The court stated it would give a limiting instruction covering those acts not redacted, such as the mari- juana use. Before any part of the video of the Hinsley-Evans interview was played for the jury, the court instructed the jury as follows: Ladies and gentlemen, we’re about to hear and see a recording of the interview with Raymond Evans and Sergeant Hinsley. I’ve ordered parts of the recording to be deleted for efficiency purposes and because the deleted portions are not relevant for purposes of this trial. You’re not to concern yourself with the contents of the deleted portions, or consider them at all in your deliberations, or speculate as to their content. In addition, you may hear evidence of bad acts about Raymond Evans other than the charge for which he is on trial. You should not consider those acts, including possessing or smoking marijuana for purposes of Raymond Evans[’] character. Raymond Evans is on trial only for the charges that I’ve instructed you in the beginning of the case.  - 855 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 A couple of hours into the playing of the interview at trial, Evans’ attorney requested a sidebar to discuss a statement that was supposed to have been stricken from the video but was played for the jury. Specifically, Hinsley’s statement “you’re not being truthful, though,” was played to the jury. Hinsley’s statement came after Evans said he was being cooperative, and Hinsley told Evans there was a difference between being cooperative and being truthful. Evans moved for a mistrial on the grounds that the stricken statement was played for the jury. The court denied the motion for mistrial but stated it would formulate a limiting instruction to address the error. The court allowed the State to resume the video for about another hour before the court adjourned for the day. No limit- ing instruction was given at the conclusion of the portion of the video played that day. However, the next morning before trial resumed, the court granted Evans’ request that a limiting instruction be given before and after the playing of the remain- der of the video that the jury had not yet heard. Before the redacted interview video was resumed, the court gave the new limiting instruction to the jury, which provided: And, ladies and gentlemen, before we resume playing of the interview, I would like to read an instruction to you. Members of the jury, you are about to hear and have been listening to a video where Detective Ryan Hinsley questioned Raymond Evans. This is admitted for Raymond Evans[’] statements. Detective Hinsley’s statements are included to give context to Raymond Evans[’] statements. Detective Hinsley’s statements were part of interview techniques and should not be considered as substantive evidence in any way in determining if Raymond Evans committed first degree murder or use of a weapon, not a firearm, to commit the same. Raymond Evans[’] statements are evidence in this case. Following the conclusion of the video and the end of Hinsley’s testimony that day, the court again read the above limiting instruction to the jury.  - 856 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 After the State rested its case in chief, Evans again moved for mistrial on the grounds of Hinsley’s statement about Evans’ being untruthful. The State countered that Hinsley’s comment was unintentionally played, all other similar statements were redacted, and the single comment did not rise to the level of a mistrial. The court again denied Evans’ motion for mistrial, explaining it believed the comment was inadvertently not redacted and the limiting instruction was sufficient to resolve the issue. Several instructions in the court’s instructions at the close of all the evidence addressed the video of Hinsley’s interview with Evans and any prior bad acts or commentary on truthful- ness. Instruction No. 13 provided: You may have heard evidence of bad acts about Raymond Evans other than the charges for which he is on trial. You should not consider those acts (including possession and/or smoking marijuana) for purposes of Raymond Evans’ character. Raymond Evans is on trial for only the charges that I have instructed you in the beginning of the case. Instruction No. 14 continued: You heard and saw a recording of an interview with Raymond Evans and Sgt. Hinsley. I have ordered parts of the recording to be deleted for efficiency purposes and because the deleted portions are not relevant for purposes of this trial. You are not to concern yourself with the contents of the deleted portions, consider them at all in your deliberations, or speculate as to their content. Finally, instruction No. 15 provided: You heard and saw a video where Detective Ryan Hinsley questioned Raymond Evans. This is admitted for Raymond Evans’ statements. Detective Hinsley’s statements are included to give context to Raymond Evans’ statements. Detective Hinsley’s statements were part of interview techniques and should not be considered as substantive evidence in any way in determining if  - 857 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 321 Nebraska Reports STATE v. EVANS Cite as 321 Neb. 841 Raymond Evans committed first degree murder or use of a weapon, not a firearm, to commit the same. Raymond Evans’ statements are evidence in this case. During closing argument, counsel for the State said to the jury, “There’s a difference between being cooperative and being truthful. And I — I’m positive you know the difference.” Evans did not object to this statement during closing argument. (e) November 22, 2023, Woodcrest Apartment Search and Followup Investigation In the search conducted during the Evans-Hinsley inter- view, detectives found black satin and mermaid pillow- cases matching the black satin sheet and mermaid comforter Cecilia’s body was found wrapped in. In the kitchen of Cecilia’s Woodcrest apartment, detectives observed a black plastic trash bag with a blue tie, which matched the trash bags found wrapped around Cecilia’s feet and head. While looking for a hammer, based on Linde’s opinion from the autopsy,