State v. Green ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •     Nebraska Advance Sheets
    212	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Jamey R. Green, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed January 17, 2014.     No. S-13-222.
    1.	 Constitutional Law: Statutes: Appeal and Error. The constitutionality of a
    statute is a question of law, regarding which the Supreme Court is obligated to
    reach a conclusion independent of the determination reached by the trial court.
    2.	 Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress: Appeal and
    Error. In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to suppress based on a
    claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part
    standard of review. Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial
    court’s findings for clear error. But whether those facts trigger or violate Fourth
    Amendment protections is a question of law that an appellate court reviews inde-
    pendently of the trial court’s determination.
    3.	 Jury Instructions. Whether jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is
    a question of law.
    4.	 Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error. Whether to grant a motion for mistrial
    is within the trial court’s discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb its
    ruling unless the court abused its discretion.
    5.	 Constitutional Law: Statutes. In a challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness
    of a law, a court’s first task is to analyze overbreadth.
    6.	 ____: ____. An attack on the overbreadth of a statute asserts that language in the
    statute impermissibly infringes on a constitutionally protected right.
    7.	 ____: ____. A statute may be unconstitutionally overbroad only if its overbreadth
    is substantial, that is, when the statute would be unconstitutional in a substantial
    portion of the situations to which it is applicable.
    8.	 Constitutional Law: Criminal Law: Statutes. The void-for-vagueness doctrine
    requires that a penal statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definite-
    ness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and in a
    manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
    9.	 Constitutional Law: Statutes: Legislature: Notice. The more important aspect
    of the void-for-vagueness doctrine is not actual notice, but the requirement that a
    legislature establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement.
    10.	 Constitutional Law: Statutes: Standing. To have standing to assert a claim
    of vagueness, a defendant must not have engaged in conduct which is clearly
    prohibited by the questioned statute and cannot maintain that the statute is vague
    when applied to the conduct of others.
    11.	 ____: ____: ____. A court will not examine the vagueness of the law as it might
    apply to the conduct of persons not before the court.
    12.	 ____: ____: ____. The test for standing to assert a vagueness challenge is the
    same whether the challenge asserted is facial or as applied.
    13.	 Appeal and Error. In order to be considered by an appellate court, an alleged
    error must be both specifically assigned and specifically argued in the brief of the
    party asserting the error.
    14.	 Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S.
    Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	213
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    15.	 Constitutional Law: Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure. Warrantless
    searches and seizures are per se unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment, sub-
    ject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which
    must be strictly confined by their justifications.
    16.	 Warrantless Searches: Search and Seizure: Probation and Parole. The U.S.
    Supreme Court has recognized that there is an exception to the warrant require-
    ment for searches and seizures when special needs, beyond the normal need for
    law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirements impracti-
    cable. A probation setting is an example of such a special need.
    17.	 Constitutional Law: Warrantless Searches: Probation and Parole. Conditions
    in probation orders requiring the probationer to submit to warrantless searches, to
    the extent they contribute to the rehabilitation process and are done in a reason-
    able manner, are valid and constitutional.
    18.	 Search and Seizure: Probation and Parole: Police Officers and Sheriffs. Law
    enforcement may conduct probation searches of probationers so long as law
    enforcement is acting under the direction of a probation officer.
    19.	 Entrapment: Jury Instructions. When a defendant raises the defense of
    entrapment, the trial court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the
    defendant has presented sufficient evidence to warrant a jury instruction on
    entrapment.
    20.	 Constitutional Law: Criminal Law: Entrapment: Words and Phrases. The
    entrapment defense is not of constitutional dimension. In Nebraska, entrapment
    is an affirmative defense consisting of two elements: (1) the government induced
    the defendant to commit the offense charged and (2) the defendant’s predisposi-
    tion to commit the criminal act was such that the defendant was not otherwise
    ready and willing to commit the offense.
    21.	 Entrapment: Evidence: Proof. The burden of going forward with evidence of
    government inducement is on the defendant. In assessing whether the defendant
    has satisfied this burden, the initial duty of the court is to determine whether there
    is sufficient evidence that the government has induced the defendant to commit a
    crime. The court makes this determination as a matter of law, and the defendant’s
    evidence of inducement need be only more than a scintilla to satisfy his or her
    initial burden.
    22.	 Criminal Law: Entrapment: Estoppel. The defense of entrapment by estoppel
    consists of four elements: (1) the defendant acted in good faith before taking
    any action; (2) an authorized government official, acting with actual or apparent
    authority and who had been made aware of all relevant historical facts, affirm­
    atively told the defendant that his or her conduct was legal; (3) the defendant
    actually relied on the statements of the government official; and (4) such reliance
    was reasonable.
    23.	 Entrapment: Estoppel: Proof. The same burdens apply for the defense of
    entrapment by estoppel as do for traditional estoppel.
    24.	 Entrapment: Intent. Nebraska has adopted the “origin of intent” test for entrap-
    ment: If the intent to commit the crime charged originated with the government
    rather than the defendant, the defendant was entrapped.
    25.	 Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys. Generally, in assessing allegations of prosecu-
    torial misconduct in closing arguments, a court first determines whether the
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    214	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    prosecutor’s remarks were improper. It is then necessary to determine the extent
    to which the improper remarks had a prejudicial effect on the defendant’s right to
    a fair trial.
    26.	   Motions for Mistrial: Prosecuting Attorneys: Proof. Before it is necessary to
    grant a mistrial for prosecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that a
    substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.
    27.	   Criminal Law: Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error. A mistrial is properly
    granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the course of a trial
    which is of such a nature that its damaging effect cannot be removed by proper
    admonition or instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.
    28.	   Criminal Law: Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys: Juries. It is highly improper and
    generally prejudicial for a prosecuting attorney in a criminal case to declare to the
    jury his or her personal belief in the guilt of the defendant, unless such belief is
    given as a deduction from evidence.
    29.	   Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim,
    whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the stan-
    dard 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.
    30.	   Plea in Abatement: Appeal and Error. Any error in ruling on a plea in abate-
    ment is cured by a subsequent finding at trial of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
    which is supported by sufficient evidence.
    Appeal from the District Court for Lancaster County: John
    A. Colborn, Judge. Affirmed.
    Dennis R. Keefe, Lancaster County Public Defender, and
    Christopher Eickholt for appellant.
    Jon Bruning, Attorney General, and Stacy M. Foust for
    appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Wright, Connolly, Stephan, McCormack,
    Miller-Lerman, and Cassel, JJ.
    Heavican, C.J.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    Jamey R. Green was convicted of possession of a deadly
    weapon by a prohibited person and was sentenced to 2 years’
    probation. He appeals. We affirm.
    II. BACKGROUND
    Green was convicted in 2007 of several felonies in Minnesota
    for which he was serving probation. Green and the State of
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	215
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    Minnesota applied with the State of Nebraska for a courtesy
    supervision of Green’s probation. An investigation was con-
    ducted by Karen Foster, a probation officer for the State of
    Nebraska. That investigation included, among other things,
    an August 29, 2011, visit by Foster to the home of Green’s
    sister, where Green was planning to reside if the transfer
    was approved. Following that investigation, Green’s transfer
    request was granted.
    On September 21, 2011, Green signed paperwork agreeing
    to probation supervision by the State of Nebraska. At the time
    Green signed this paperwork, he met with Leslie Van Winkle,
    another probation officer. The courtesy supervision guidelines
    agreed to by Green stated that he “[s]hall not be in possession
    of any firearms or illegal weapons” and that he “[s]hall submit
    to a search and seizure of premises, person, or vehicle by a
    law enforcement officer or probation officer, with or without
    a warrant, day or night, to determine the presence of alcoholic
    beverages or controlled substances.” In addition, the transfer
    application submitted by Green provided that both Green and
    the Nebraska Office of Probation were bound by the conditions
    of probation as set forth in the Minnesota order of probation.
    Among other requirements, the Minnesota order of probation
    provided that Green “shall submit to random searches of his
    person, vehicle and residence.”
    About a month later, Green was assigned a new probation
    officer, Kristi Bender. Bender had previously been on mater-
    nity leave, and Van Winkle had been helping with Bender’s
    caseload during her absence. On October 20, 2011, Bender met
    with Green at the probation office. In the month that followed
    that meeting, Bender spoke with Green on the telephone on at
    least one occasion.
    On November 14, 2011, Bender and Foster conducted a sur-
    prise home visit at Green’s home. While on the visit, Bender
    asked to view Green’s bedroom. Upon being shown the room,
    Bender and Foster noted a sword and knife collection lining
    the walls of the bedroom. After returning to the office, Bender
    spoke with a colleague who had law enforcement experience
    to discuss whether Green was permitted to have the swords
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    216	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    and knives. Based upon that conversation, Bender thought that
    Green might have violated the law in possessing the swords
    and knives, so she contacted the Lincoln Police Department.
    The next day, after considering the matter and consulting with
    others at the police department, Joshua Zarasvand, the officer
    assigned to Bender’s call, determined that officers needed to
    examine the collection to determine whether it was legal for
    Green to possess it.
    Zarasvand, along with several other uniformed officers, met
    Bender at a location near Green’s home. Zarasvand reviewed
    a copy of Green’s probation contract that was provided by
    Bender. At that point, the group approached the front door of
    the home. As part of the group was knocking on the front door,
    Officer Dawn Moore noticed that the garage door was opening.
    Moore and another officer approached the garage and found
    Green and his mother.
    Bender, Zarasvand, and Officer Steven Wiese then joined
    Moore in the garage, and Bender informed Green that she
    needed to conduct a search of his residence. Green, Bender,
    Zarasvand, Moore, and Wiese then entered the home by the
    side door and went directly to the basement.
    Upon entering the basement, Bender testified that the sword
    and knife collection was still set up as it had been the day
    before. Zarasvand, Moore, and Wiese all testified to the pres-
    ence of the sword and knife collection. Zarasvand then asked
    Green if the swords and knives belonged to him; Green replied
    that they did. Zarasvand then placed Green under arrest. It was
    later determined that Green’s collection consisted of 46 various
    swords and knives of differing quality, blade sharpness, and
    blade length.
    Green was charged in Lancaster County Court with viola-
    tion of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206 (Cum. Supp. 2012), posses-
    sion of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, a Class III
    felony. Following a preliminary hearing, the charge was bound
    over to the district court and an information was filed on
    March 16, 2012.
    On March 21, 2012, Green filed a plea in abatement alleging
    that there was insufficient evidence adduced at the preliminary
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	217
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    hearing to bind the case over to district court. The plea in
    abatement was overruled on April 23.
    On April 25, 2012, Green filed a motion to quash on the
    ground that § 28-1206 and related statutes were unconstitution-
    ally vague and overbroad. The motion to quash was overruled
    on May 22. Green pled not guilty on June 6.
    On August 15, 2012, Green filed motions to suppress the
    searches of his residence on November 14 and 15, 2011,
    along with all items observed in or seized from his residence
    and any statements made by him during his contact with law
    enforcement during the search and arrest on November 15. His
    motions were overruled.
    Trial was then held on December 10 and 11, 2012. Testimony
    was given in accordance with the facts as stated above, includ-
    ing a stipulation that Green was a convicted felon and testi-
    mony that various knives from the collection had blades in
    excess of 31⁄2 inches in length. In addition, Green testified in
    his own behalf that he disclosed his sword and knife collection
    on paperwork he had completed with probation in the pres-
    ence of Van Winkle, but acknowledged that he did not verbally
    inform her of the collection.
    Green’s sister also testified. In her testimony, she stated that
    the sword and knife collection was in place at the time that
    Foster conducted her initial home visit and that she discussed
    the collection with Foster insofar as she “asked her if [the col-
    lection] would be okay.” Green’s sister testified that Foster
    told her that “she didn’t see that [the collection] would be a
    problem.” Green’s sister did not testify that she relayed this
    information to Green.
    In addition, a frequent visitor to Green’s home testified that
    she was in the house in May 2011, prior to Green’s arrival
    from Minnesota, and that the swords and knives were in place
    at that time.
    At the jury instruction conference, Green requested that
    the jury be instructed on the defense of entrapment. The dis-
    trict court refused the instruction. Closing arguments were
    then held. During the State’s closing, the prosecutor stated
    the following:
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    218	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    Typically at this stage, I would tell you there are [sic] one
    issue, maybe two that you have to decide, that we’re only
    fighting about one or two things. But in this case I don’t
    know what we’re fighting about.
    The defendant admitted to you, under oath, every sin-
    gle element of the crime that I have to prove in order for
    you to find him guilty. . . . Green said that on the 14th
    and 15th of November of 2011, he possessed a knife. He’s
    admitted and stipulated that before that time he had been
    convicted of a felony, and that this all occurred here in
    Lancaster County, Nebraska. That’s it. That’s what I have
    to prove to you and that’s what you have to find in order
    to find him guilty. So I’m a little confused on why we’re
    here and what’s the issue.
    At this point, Green objected and moved for a mistrial, argu-
    ing that “the prosecutor is arguing his personal opinion with
    respect to the evidence in this case. He’s commenting on the
    fact that we’re here in trial and he’s confused as to why we’re
    having a trial.” The district court overruled the motion for mis-
    trial, but instructed the jury that “it is improper for attorneys
    to give their own personal opinions about the evidence and if
    [the prosecutor] has done so, you are ordered to disregard his
    personal opinions.”
    Following closing arguments and jury instructions, the jury
    retired to deliberate. About 90 minutes later, the jury returned
    with a guilty verdict. Green was subsequently sentenced to 2
    years’ probation. He appeals.
    III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    On appeal, Green assigns, restated and consolidated, that
    the district court erred in (1) denying his motion to quash, (2)
    denying his motions to suppress, (3) failing to instruct the jury
    on entrapment, (4) denying his motion for mistrial, (5) finding
    sufficient evidence to support his guilty verdict, and (6) deny-
    ing his plea in abatement.
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] The constitutionality of a statute is a question of law,
    regarding which the Supreme Court is obligated to reach a
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	219
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    conclusion independent of the determination reached by the
    trial court.1
    [2] In reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion to sup-
    press based on a claimed violation of the Fourth Amendment,
    an appellate court applies a two-part standard of review.
    Regarding historical facts, an appellate court reviews the trial
    court’s findings for clear error. But whether those facts trig-
    ger or violate Fourth Amendment protections is a question of
    law that an appellate court reviews independently of the trial
    court’s determination.2
    [3] Whether jury instructions given by a trial court are cor-
    rect is a question of law.3
    [4] Whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the trial
    court’s discretion, and an appellate court will not disturb its
    ruling unless the court abused its discretion.4
    V. ANALYSIS
    1. Motion to Quash
    In his first assignment of error, Green asserts that the
    district court erred in denying his motion to quash. Green
    argues that the felon in possession statute under which he was
    charged, § 28-1206, and its definitional section, Neb. Rev. Stat.
    § 28-1201 (Cum. Supp. 2012), are unconstitutionally vague
    and overbroad.
    Section 28-1206(1) provides in relevant part that “[a]ny per-
    son who possesses a firearm, a knife, or brass or iron knuckles
    and who has previously been convicted of a felony . . . commits
    the offense of possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited
    person.” Section 28-1201(5) defines knife as “any dagger, dirk,
    knife, or stiletto with a blade over three and one-half inches in
    length or any other dangerous instrument capable of inflicting
    cutting, stabbing, or tearing wounds.”
    1
    State v. Prescott, 
    280 Neb. 96
    , 
    784 N.W.2d 873
    (2010).
    2
    State v. Wiedeman, 
    286 Neb. 193
    , 
    835 N.W.2d 698
    (2013).
    3
    State v. Watt, 
    285 Neb. 647
    , 
    832 N.W.2d 459
    (2013).
    4
    State v. Dixon, 
    286 Neb. 334
    , 
    837 N.W.2d 496
    (2013).
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    220	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    [5] As a general rule, in a challenge to the overbreadth
    and vagueness of a law, a court’s first task is to analyze
    overbreadth.5
    (a) Overbreadth
    [6,7] An attack on the overbreadth of a statute asserts that
    language in the statute impermissibly infringes on a constitu-
    tionally protected right.6 A statute may be unconstitutionally
    overbroad only if its overbreadth is substantial, that is, when
    the statute would be unconstitutional in a substantial portion of
    the situations to which it is applicable.7
    Green argues that the statute is overbroad in that it “neces-
    sarily prohibits every item with a blade exceeding three and
    one-half inches” and “would seem to prohibit every sharp
    object a person might have in his or her possession.”8
    But Green overlooks the fact that the definition of “knife”
    set forth in § 28-1201(5) does not prohibit the innocent pos-
    session of a knife with a blade in excess of 31⁄2 inches. Rather,
    the possession of such a knife is only a violation of the law
    when the possessor, like Green, is a felon. Thus, the definition
    of a knife acts together with the criminal liability set forth in
    § 28-1206(1) to prohibit the possession of a knife in a fairly
    narrow set of circumstances—when that knife is possessed
    by a felon. This does not infringe upon a substantial amount
    of constitutionally protected conduct, but instead acts to deter
    convicted felons from possessing dangerous weapons.9
    Green’s argument that the statutes are overbroad is with-
    out merit.
    (b) Vagueness
    [8,9] The void-for-vagueness doctrine requires that a penal
    statute define the criminal offense with sufficient definite-
    ness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is
    5
    State v. Faber, 
    264 Neb. 198
    , 
    647 N.W.2d 67
    (2002).
    6
    Id.
    7
    Id.
    8
    Brief for appellant at 29.
    9
    See State v. Jones, 
    198 N.J. Super. 553
    , 
    487 A.2d 1278
    (1985).
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	221
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    prohibited and in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary
    and discriminatory enforcement.10 The more important aspect
    of the void-for-vagueness doctrine is not actual notice, but the
    requirement that a legislature establish minimal guidelines to
    govern law enforcement.11
    [10-12] To have standing to assert a claim of vagueness, a
    defendant must not have engaged in conduct which is clearly
    prohibited by the questioned statute and cannot maintain that
    the statute is vague when applied to the conduct of others.12
    A court will not examine the vagueness of the law as it might
    apply to the conduct of persons not before the court.13 The
    test for standing to assert a vagueness challenge is the same
    whether the challenge asserted is facial or as applied.14
    Green lacks standing to assert that § 28-1206 is vague
    because his conduct clearly violated the statute. The statute
    prohibits the possession of a knife by a felon. And “[k]nife”
    is defined in § 28-1201(5) to include a knife with a blade that
    exceeds 31⁄2 inches in length. Green was undisputedly a felon;
    the evidence presented at trial showed, Green admitted, and a
    jury found, that Green was in possession of knives with blades
    in excess of 31⁄2 inches as defined by the statute.
    Green lacks standing, and therefore his argument that the
    statutes are vague is without merit, as is his first assignment
    of error.
    2. Motions to Suppress
    In his second assignment of error, Green assigns that the
    district court erred in denying his motions to suppress and in
    admitting the sword and knife collection and statements he
    made to law enforcement at the time of the search.
    [13] While Green assigns that his statements admitting that
    the weapons were his should have been suppressed and he
    restates that assignment in the facts section of his brief, he
    10
    State v. Faber, supra note 5.
    11
    
    Id. 12 Id.
    13
    
    Id. 14 Id.
        Nebraska Advance Sheets
    222	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    does not otherwise argue the inadmissibility of those state-
    ments. As such, the admissibility of the statements will not
    be discussed further. In order to be considered by an appel-
    late court, an alleged error must be both specifically assigned
    and specifically argued in the brief of the party asserting
    the error.15
    Green does not contest the validity of Bender and Foster’s
    first entry into his home on November 14, 2011, and acknowl-
    edges that once the officers were in his bedroom on November
    15, the sword and knife collection was in plain view. But
    Green contends the November 15 search was not done pursu-
    ant to a warrant, does not fit within an exception to the warrant
    requirement, and was not permitted by any condition of his
    probation; as such, the fruits of that search—the sword and
    knife collection—should be suppressed.
    [14-17] The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
    protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. We have
    stated that warrantless searches and seizures are per se unrea-
    sonable under the Fourth Amendment, subject only to a few
    specifically established and well-delineated exceptions, which
    must be strictly confined by their justifications.16 The U.S.
    Supreme Court has recognized that there is an exception
    to the warrant requirement for searches and seizures “when
    ‘special needs,’ beyond the normal need for law enforce-
    ment, make the warrant and probable-cause requirements
    impracticable.”17 A probation setting is an example of such a
    special need.18 Moreover, this court has held that “conditions
    in probation orders requiring the probationer to submit to war-
    rantless searches, to the extent they contribute to the rehabili-
    tation process and are done in a reasonable manner, are valid
    and constitutional.”19
    15
    J.P. v. Millard Public Schools, 
    285 Neb. 890
    , 
    830 N.W.2d 453
    (2013).
    16
    State v. Borst, 
    281 Neb. 217
    , 
    795 N.W.2d 262
    (2011).
    17
    Griffin v. Wisconsin, 
    483 U.S. 868
    , 873, 
    107 S. Ct. 3164
    , 
    97 L. Ed. 2d 709
          (1987).
    18
    
    Id. 19 State
    v. Morgan, 
    206 Neb. 818
    , 826-27, 
    295 N.W.2d 285
    , 289 (1980).
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	223
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    In this case, Green’s Nebraska probation order allowed
    for searches for drugs or alcohol at any time. Of course, the
    search at issue was not done for the purposes of searching
    for drugs and alcohol. Rather, the record is clear that proba-
    tion and law enforcement were interested in examining the
    sword and knife collection. But Green’s Minnesota probation
    order included a broader search condition. Green argues that
    the Nebraska order narrowed the terms of his probation, but
    he provides no authority for his implicit assertion that the
    Minnesota condition on searches was no longer applicable.
    Indeed, the Nebraska order, which Green specifically agreed
    to, provided that all terms of the Minnesota order must con-
    tinue to be complied with. Thus, Green’s contention that the
    conditions of his probation did not permit this search is with-
    out merit.
    And the search condition is reasonable and related to the
    rehabilitative process. While no warrant was sought, there
    was probable cause to obtain a warrant based upon Bender
    and Foster’s viewing the sword and knife collection. In addi-
    tion, the search was done during daylight hours, and the
    police located Green before conducting the search and were
    admitted into the home by Green. Given this context and the
    presence of probable cause, the search of Green’s bedroom
    was reasonable.
    Green also argues that the search condition was not related
    to the rehabilitative purposes of his probation because he was
    not convicted of a weapons violation. But state law prohibits
    all felons, regardless of the underlying felony, from possessing
    a weapon,20 and Green’s probation order specifically noted that
    he was not to possess illegal weapons. The search condition
    is related to this prohibition.21 Green’s argument that there is
    no definition of an illegal weapon is without merit, as state
    law specifically sets forth the weapons which may not be pos-
    sessed by a convicted felon.22
    20
    § 28-1206.
    21
    See, e.g., State v. Davis, 
    6 Neb. Ct. App. 790
    , 
    577 N.W.2d 763
    (1998).
    22
    §§ 28-1201 and 28-1206.
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    224	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    Finally, Green argues that the search was illegal because
    it was done by law enforcement “for the purpose of locating
    and confiscating the alleged knives and swords in . . . Green’s
    residence.”23 Green contends that the search “cannot be said to
    be a probation search [because t]he matter was turned over to
    law enforcement, whose members organized the search.”24
    [18] We disagree that on these facts the search was not
    a probation search. Law enforcement may conduct searches
    of probationers so long as law enforcement is acting under
    the direction of a probation officer.25 The Eighth Circuit has
    noted that
    [p]robation offices are neither designed nor staffed to
    conduct these types of searches alone. . . . Probation offi-
    cers often must bring law enforcement along to ensure the
    probation officers’ safety. . . . In short, when a probation-
    ary condition authorizes searches by probation officers,
    the Fourth Amendment does not require probation officers
    to choose between endangering themselves by search-
    ing alone and foregoing [sic] the search because they
    lacked the resources and expertise necessary to search
    alone safely.26
    Such was the case here. It was a probation officer, Bender,
    who originally expressed concern about the collection, and
    both Bender and Foster testified that because of safety con-
    cerns, nothing was said to Green about the collection during
    the home visit. Because of the probation office’s questions
    about the legality of the collection, Bender ultimately con-
    tacted law enforcement. Finally, Bender and her supervisor
    were present during the search. Under these circumstances, we
    conclude that the search of Green’s bedroom was done under
    the direction of probation.
    This result does not change because Green was ultimately
    charged with being a felon in possession of a weapon rather
    23
    Brief for appellant at 36.
    24
    
    Id. at 34.
    25
    See, e.g., U.S. v. Warren, 
    566 F.3d 1211
    (10th Cir. 2009); U.S. v. Newton,
    
    369 F.3d 659
    (2d Cir. 2004); U.S. v. Brown, 
    346 F.3d 808
    (8th Cir. 2003).
    
    26 U.S. v
    . Brown, supra note 
    25, 346 F.3d at 812
    .
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	225
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    than with a probation violation.27 In the parole context, the
    Second Circuit has stated that
    [a] parole officer is charged with the duty of enforc-
    ing these conditions. To hold that evidence obtained by
    a parole officer in the course of carrying out this duty
    cannot be utilized in a subsequent prosecution because
    evidence obtained directly by the police in such a man-
    ner would be excluded, would unduly immunize parolees
    from conviction.28
    We find this equally applicable to the probation context.
    Green’s second assignment of error is without merit.
    3. Entrapment
    In his third assignment of error, Green contends that the
    district court erred in not instructing the jury on the defense
    of entrapment.
    [19] When a defendant raises the defense of entrapment,
    the trial court must determine, as a matter of law, whether the
    defendant has presented sufficient evidence to warrant a jury
    instruction on entrapment.29
    [20-22] The entrapment defense is not of constitutional
    dimension.30 In Nebraska, entrapment is an affirmative defense
    consisting of two elements: (1) the government induced the
    defendant to commit the offense charged and (2) the defend­
    ant’s predisposition to commit the criminal act was such that
    the defendant was not otherwise ready and willing to commit
    the offense. The burden of going forward with evidence of
    government inducement is on the defendant.31 In assessing
    whether the defendant has satisfied this burden, the initial
    27
    See, Latta v. Fitzharris, 
    521 F.2d 246
    (9th Cir. 1975); United States ex rel.
    Santos v. New York State Bd. of Par., 
    441 F.2d 1216
    (2d Cir. 1971).
    28
    United States ex rel. Santos v. New York State Bd. of Par., supra note 
    27, 441 F.2d at 1218
    .
    29
    State v. Kass, 
    281 Neb. 892
    , 
    799 N.W.2d 680
    (2011).
    30
    United States v. Russell, 
    411 U.S. 423
    , 
    93 S. Ct. 1637
    , 
    36 L. Ed. 2d 366
          (1973).
    31
    State v. Kass, supra note 29.
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    226	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    duty of the court is to determine whether there is sufficient
    evidence that the government has induced the defendant to
    commit a crime.32 The court makes this determination as a
    matter of law, and the defendant’s evidence of inducement
    need be only more than a scintilla to satisfy his or her ini-
    tial burden.33
    [22,23] This court has also recently approved a variation
    on the traditional entrapment defense. In State v. Edwards,34
    we recognized the defense of entrapment by estoppel, which
    consists of four elements: (1) the defendant acted in good
    faith before taking any action; (2) an authorized government
    official, acting with actual or apparent authority and who had
    been made aware of all relevant historical facts, affirmatively
    told the defendant that his conduct was legal; (3) the defend­
    ant actually relied on the statements of the government offi-
    cial; and (4) such reliance was reasonable. The same burdens
    apply for the defense of entrapment by estoppel as do for
    traditional estoppel.35
    At trial, Green sought an instruction on traditional entrap-
    ment. Specifically, Green proposed the following instruction:
    The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
    . . . Green was not entrapped into committing the crime of
    Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Prohibited Person.
    Entrapment means that:
    1. The idea for committing the crime of Possession
    of a Deadly Weapon came from a law enforcement offi-
    cer; and
    2. a law enforcement officer then talked or persuaded
    . . . Green into committing the crime of Possession of
    a Deadly Weapon by a Prohibited Person. Simply giv-
    ing . . . Green the opportunity to commit the crime of
    Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Prohibited Person is
    not the same as persuading him to commit it; and
    32
    
    Id. 33 Id.
    34
    State v. Edwards, 
    286 Neb. 404
    , 
    837 N.W.2d 81
    (2013).
    35
    
    Id. Nebraska Advance
    Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	227
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    3. . . . Green was not already willing to commit the
    crime of Possession of a Deadly Weapon by a Prohibited
    Person before a law enforcement officer talked to him.
    In his brief on appeal, Green argues generally that there
    was a scintilla of evidence to support an entrapment defense
    because of the testimony of Green’s sister, who testified that
    she asked Foster during the home check if Green could have
    the sword and knife collection and that Foster told her that the
    collection was permitted.
    But Green now also notes the entrapment by estoppel
    defense. From his brief on appeal, it is not clear which instruc-
    tion he now argues he should have had: the traditional entrap-
    ment instruction that he requested, or the entrapment by estop-
    pel instruction mentioned in his brief. In his reply brief, Green
    seems to more clearly suggest that the entrapment by estoppel
    instruction was appropriate.
    As an initial matter, we note that Green cannot predicate
    error on the district court’s failure to give the entrapment by
    estoppel instruction when it was not asked to give that specific
    instruction. But in any case, Green is not entitled to an entrap-
    ment by estoppel instruction based upon the record.
    Here, Green bears the initial burden of showing, among
    other elements, that he was affirmatively told that he could
    possess the sword and knife collection. But there is no evi-
    dence of that in the record. There is disputed evidence that
    Green’s sister was told that Green could have the collection;
    but Green’s sister is not Green. And there is no evidence that
    Green’s sister ever communicated to Green that the collection
    was permissible.
    There is also evidence that Green reported the collection on
    paperwork filed with the probation office and assumed that the
    collection was permitted, because he was not told otherwise.
    But this was not an affirmative statement from an authorized
    government official, nor can Green produce the paperwork
    where he allegedly disclosed this collection.
    [24] And the traditional entrapment defense actually sought
    at trial is also inapplicable in this situation. As noted above,
    entrapment consists of two elements: (1) the government
    induced the defendant to commit the offense charged and
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    228	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    (2) the defendant’s predisposition to commit the criminal act
    was such that the defendant was not otherwise ready and will-
    ing to commit the offense. Nebraska has adopted the “origin of
    intent” test for entrapment: “If the intent to commit the crime
    charged originated with the government rather than the defend­
    ant, the defendant was entrapped.”36 Put another way,
    entrapment is established where police officers or their
    agents incited, induced, instigated, or lured the accused
    into committing an offense that the person otherwise
    would not have committed and had no intention of com-
    mitting. It entails the conception and planning of an
    offense by an officer and the procurement of its commis-
    sion by one who would have not perpetrated it, except for
    the officer’s trickery, persuasion, or fraud.37
    Even assuming that Foster told Green’s sister that the col-
    lection was permissible, there is no evidence that Foster was
    attempting to trap Green into being a felon in possession of
    a weapon. Green already owned the weapons. In fact, the
    evidence suggests that Foster and the others at the probation
    office were not even clear that the collection was in violation
    of the law.
    And as with the defense of entrapment by estoppel, because
    no law enforcement officer told Green that he could have the
    collection, and at most told only his sister, Green cannot prove
    that a law enforcement officer “talked or persuaded” him into
    possessing the collection.
    Green’s third assignment of error is without merit.
    4. Motion for Mistrial
    In his fourth assignment of error, Green assigns that the
    district court erred in denying his motion for mistrial. Green
    asserts that comments made by the prosecutor during closing
    argument were prejudicial and entitle him to a mistrial. Green
    also argues that the prosecutor continued to make such com-
    ments even after the court admonished the jury to disregard the
    personal opinions of the prosecutor.
    36
    State v. Cain, 
    223 Neb. 796
    , 800, 
    393 N.W.2d 727
    , 731 (1986).
    37
    22 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 72 at 113-14 (2006).
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	229
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    [25-27] Generally, in assessing allegations of prosecuto-
    rial misconduct in closing arguments, a court first determines
    whether the prosecutor’s remarks were improper.38 It is then
    necessary to determine the extent to which the improper
    remarks had a prejudicial effect on the defendant’s right to a
    fair trial.39 Before it is necessary to grant a mistrial for pros-
    ecutorial misconduct, the defendant must show that a substan-
    tial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred.40 A mistrial
    is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs
    during the course of a trial which is of such a nature that its
    damaging effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or
    instruction to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.41
    [28] As an initial matter, it is not clear that the prosecu-
    tor’s statements were improper. We have held that it is highly
    improper and generally prejudicial for a prosecuting attorney in
    a criminal case to declare to the jury his or her personal belief
    in the guilt of the defendant, unless such belief is given as a
    deduction from evidence.42 Here, the prosecutor indicated that
    he did not know why there was a trial because, in his view,
    there were no issues left for the jury to decide. The prosecutor
    then pointed out, correctly, that Green had admitted to every
    element that the State had to prove. So, while the prosecutor
    might have referenced his personal beliefs, it appears that such
    were a deduction from the evidence. Green further argues that
    the prosecutor persisted in making such statements even after
    the admonishment. But Green does not specifically direct us
    to the statements which he now complains about, nor did he
    object to them at the time.
    38
    State v. Gresham, 
    276 Neb. 187
    , 
    752 N.W.2d 571
    (2008).
    39
    
    Id. 40 State
    v. Floyd, 
    272 Neb. 898
    , 
    725 N.W.2d 817
    (2007), disapproved on
    other grounds, State v. McCulloch, 
    274 Neb. 636
    , 
    742 N.W.2d 727
    .
    41
    
    Id. 42 State
    v. Myers, 
    244 Neb. 905
    , 
    510 N.W.2d 58
    (1994), overruled on other
    grounds, State v. Burlison, 
    255 Neb. 190
    , 
    583 N.W.2d 31
    (1998); State v.
    Leonard, 
    196 Neb. 731
    , 
    246 N.W.2d 68
    (1976); State v. Brooks, 
    189 Neb. 592
    , 
    204 N.W.2d 86
    (1973).
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    230	287 NEBRASKA REPORTS
    But even assuming that the statements were improper, the
    remarks were not so prejudicial as to require the granting of
    a mistrial. The jury was admonished that the attorneys were
    not permitted to give their personal opinions about the case
    and that if the jury believed that the prosecutor had done so,
    it should disregard those statements. A review of the clos-
    ing arguments as a whole does not suggest that Green was
    deprived of his right to a fair trial.
    Green’s fourth assignment of error is without merit.
    5. Plea in Abatement and
    Sufficiency of Evidence
    [29] In his fifth and final assignment of error, Green argues
    that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction.
    In reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim, 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.43
    Green’s argument is primarily premised on the lack of evi-
    dence presented that he intended to “threaten or cause harm to
    anyone.”44 But there is no intent element for the crime of felon
    in possession of a weapon.45 The jury concluded that the evi-
    dence supported a finding of guilt because Green was a felon
    and he possessed a knife with a blade in excess of 31⁄2 inches.
    The State did not have to show, and the jury did not have to
    find, that Green intended to harm anyone with a knife.
    In this case, the parties stipulated that Green was a convicted
    felon and Green admitted that the sword and knife collection,
    found in his bedroom, was his. There was sufficient evidence
    to support Green’s conviction.
    [30] Green also contends that the district court erred in
    denying his plea in abatement. He argues that there was insuf-
    ficient evidence to bind his case over for trial. But any error
    43
    State v. Watson, 
    285 Neb. 497
    , 
    827 N.W.2d 507
    (2013).
    44
    Brief for appellant at 10.
    45
    See § 28-1206(1).
    Nebraska Advance Sheets
    STATE v. GREEN	231
    Cite as 
    287 Neb. 212
    in ruling on a plea in abatement is cured by a subsequent
    finding at trial of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt which is
    supported by sufficient evidence.46
    Green’s fifth assignment of error is without merit.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    The decision of the district court is affirmed.
    Affirmed.
    46
    State v. McGee, 
    282 Neb. 387
    , 
    803 N.W.2d 497
    (2011).