State v. Savage - supplemental opinion
Cases that cite this one
9 later published cases cite this decision.
- State v. Long (Neb. Ct. App. 2023)
- Schuemann v. Menard, Inc. (Neb. Ct. App. 2020)
- State v. Lockman (Neb. Ct. App. 2026)
- Savage v. Jeffreys (United States District Court, Nebraska 2024)
- State v. Franco (Neb. Ct. App. 2019)
- State v. Franco (Neb. Ct. App. 2019)
- State v. Falcon (Neb. 2025)
- People v. Horton (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- AVG Partners I v. Genesis Health Clubs (Neb. 2020)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
This case is before us on a motion for rehearing filed by the appellant, Courtney J. Savage, concerning our opinion in
State v. Savage
,
In the subsection "(a) Authentication," after the fourth sentence of the fourth paragraph, we insert the following language:
As for Savage's contention that the State did not properly authenticate messages sent to him by others, we again disagree. The State was required only to introduce testimony sufficient to establish that the evidence was what the State claimed it to be. The State did not claim that messages sent by others were anything more than messages sent to Savage's cell phone. See State v. Elseman ,287 Neb. 134 ,841 N.W.2d 225 (2014).
Savage
,
In subsection "(b) Hearsay," following the second to the last paragraph, we insert the following paragraph:
We also reject Savage's argument that text messages sent to his cell phone by unidentified individuals contained inadmissible hearsay. Hearsay is "a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted."Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-801 (3) (Reissue 2016). Messages sent to Savage's cell phone were not offered for the truth of the matters asserted. They were offered to prove that the statements were made.
Savage
,
The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
FORMER OPINION MODIFIED .
MOTION FOR REHEARING OVERRULED .
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.