State v. Prior , 30 Neb. Ct. App. 821 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    04/19/2022 09:08 AM CDT
    - 821 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Stephen R. Prior, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed April 12, 2022.    No. A-20-888.
    1. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure: Motions to Suppress:
    Appeal and Error. When 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 histori-
    cal 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 indepen-
    dently of the trial court’s determination.
    2. Property: Appeal and Error. A trial court’s finding that an item of per-
    sonal property has been abandoned, and thus not subject to a reasonable
    expectation of privacy, is reviewed for clear error.
    3. Rules of Evidence: Other Acts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court
    reviews the admission of evidence of other acts under 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404
    (2) (Supp. 2019) by considering (1) whether the evidence was
    relevant, (2) whether the evidence had a proper purpose, (3) whether
    the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for unfair
    prejudice, and (4) whether the trial court, if requested, instructed
    the jury to consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it
    was admitted.
    4. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Regardless of whether
    the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and
    regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict,
    insufficiency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the
    standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, 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, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial
    error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favor-
    ably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction.
    - 822 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    5. Evidence: Appeal and Error. The relevant question for an appellate
    court on review of the sufficiency of evidence 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.
    6. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen-
    tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion
    by the trial court.
    7. ____: ____. In reviewing a sentence imposed within the statutory limits,
    an appellate court considers whether the sentencing court abused its dis-
    cretion in considering and applying the relevant factors as well as any
    legal principles in determining the sentence to be imposed.
    8. Sentences. Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to direct that
    sentences imposed for separate crimes be served either concurrently
    or consecutively.
    9. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure. The Fourth Amendment to
    the U.S. Constitution and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution
    protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures by
    the government.
    10. Search and Seizure. When individuals voluntarily abandon property,
    they forfeit any expectation of privacy in the property that they might
    otherwise have had.
    11. Constitutional Law: Search and Seizure. Because the Fourth
    Amendment does not protect voluntarily abandoned property, a war-
    rantless search or seizure of abandoned property does not violate the
    Fourth Amendment.
    12. ____: ____. A search for Fourth Amendment purposes occurs when the
    government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society
    recognizes as reasonable.
    13. Constitutional Law: Property: Search and Seizure. Once a defend­
    ant abandons an item of personal property and makes it available to
    the police or the public, he or she does not retain a reasonable expec-
    tation of privacy in the property for purposes of Fourth Amendment
    protection.
    14. Constitutional Law: Property: Search and Seizure: Police Officers
    and Sheriffs: Proof: Intent. To show abandonment of personal prop-
    erty for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the State must establish by
    a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant’s voluntary words or
    conduct would lead a reasonable officer to believe the defendant relin-
    quished his or her property interests in the item. This is an objective
    test based on the information available to the officer, and the defendant’s
    subjective intent to later reclaim the item is irrelevant.
    - 823 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    15. Property: Search and Seizure. When determining whether property
    has been abandoned, courts consider the totality of the circumstances,
    and pay particular attention to the nature and location of any physical
    relinquishment of the property and any explicit denials of ownership.
    16. Trial: Evidence: Appeal and Error. An objection must be specifically
    stated, and on appeal, a defendant may not assert a different ground for
    his or her objection to the admission of evidence than was offered to the
    trier of fact.
    17. Identification Procedures: Police Officers and Sheriffs: Motions
    to Suppress. Suppression of identification evidence on the basis of
    undue suggestion is appropriate only where the witness’ ability to make
    an accurate identification is outweighed by the corrupting effect of
    improper police conduct.
    18. Trial: Identification Procedures. When no improper law enforcement
    activity is involved, it suffices to test the reliability of identification tes-
    timony at trial, through the rights and opportunities generally designed
    for that purpose, such as the rights to counsel, compulsory process, and
    confrontation and cross-examination of witnesses.
    19. Convictions: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts will not reverse a
    criminal conviction in the absence of prejudice to the defendant.
    20. Rules of Evidence. 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 admissibility.
    21. Evidence: Appeal and Error. A trial court has the discretion to deter-
    mine the relevancy and admissibility of evidence, and such determina-
    tions will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of
    that discretion.
    22. Trial: Evidence: Other Acts. It is within the discretion of the trial court
    to determine relevancy and admissibility of evidence of other wrongs or
    acts, and the trial court’s decision will not be reversed absent an abuse
    of that discretion.
    23. Evidence: Other Acts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court reviews
    the admission of evidence of other acts by considering whether the evi-
    dence was relevant, whether the evidence had a proper purpose, whether
    the probative value of the evidence outweighed its potential for unfair
    prejudice, and whether the trial court, if requested, instructed the jury to
    consider the evidence only for the purpose for which it was admitted.
    24. Trial: Witnesses: Service of Process. Process to secure attendance of
    witnesses from another state may not be issued unless the testimony
    proposed to be elicited from such witnesses is relevant to the issues to
    be tried.
    - 824 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    25. Trial: Pleadings: Evidence. It is proper to sustain a motion in limine to
    prevent reference to or the offer of evidence concerning matters which
    are entirely extraneous or irrelevant to the issues of the case.
    26. Criminal Law: Directed Verdict. In a criminal case, a court can direct
    a verdict only when there is a complete failure of evidence to establish
    an essential element of the crime charged or the evidence is so doubt-
    ful in character, lacking probative value, that a finding of guilt based
    on such evidence cannot be sustained. If there is any evidence which
    will sustain a finding for the party against whom a motion for directed
    verdict is made, the case may not be decided as a matter of law, and a
    verdict may not be directed.
    27. Sentences. When imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should cus-
    tomarily consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education
    and experience, (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. However, the sentenc-
    ing court is not limited to any mathematically applied set of factors.
    28. ____. The appropriateness of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judg-
    ment and includes the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s
    demeanor and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding
    the defendant’s life.
    Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: George
    A. Thompson, Judge. Affirmed.
    Thomas P. Strigenz, Sarpy County Public Defender, for
    appellant.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Jordan Osborne
    for appellee.
    Moore, Arterburn, and Welch, Judges.
    Welch, Judge.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    Stephen R. Prior appeals seven felony convictions and two
    misdemeanor convictions related to a home invasion rob-
    bery and sexual assault and the sentences imposed thereon.
    Specifically, he contends that the district court erred in finding
    he did not have an expectation of privacy in an abandoned
    - 825 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    bag found outside of an apartment complex, overruling his
    motion to suppress the victim’s in-court voice identification of
    him, allowing the State to adduce evidence of Prior’s physi-
    cal characteristics, admitting witness testimony of prior bad
    acts, denying his request to secure attendance of ­out-of-state
    witnesses, denying his motion for directed verdict, and impos-
    ing excessive sentences. For the reasons set forth herein,
    we affirm.
    II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
    1. Facts Giving Rise to Prior’s Arrest
    At 9 p.m. on October 18, 2017, W.R., who lived alone,
    returned to her home from work. After parking her vehicle in
    her garage, W.R. retrieved her mail and placed her garbage can
    and recycling at the curb. After performing these routine activi-
    ties, W.R. entered her home and closed her garage door. She
    then cooked dinner, took a shower, and went to sleep. The nor-
    mality of the evening ended at approximately 11:30 p.m., when
    a stranger, who wore a black mask extending from his nose to
    his neck while brandishing a black semiautomatic handgun,
    woke W.R. by shining a light in her eyes. The perpetrator told
    W.R. that he “just want[ed her] money” and forced W.R. into
    the kitchen where her purse was located. When the perpetrator
    told W.R. to throw the money on the table, W.R. noticed that
    the perpetrator was wearing black gloves.
    The perpetrator then forced the victim to an exercise room
    near the garage, where he told the victim to face the wall with
    her hands up. Although the perpetrator left, he returned shortly
    thereafter, telling the victim that “we’re going to go upstairs,
    and I’m going to be here for a while.” The perpetrator forced
    the victim upstairs to her bedroom and directed W.R. not to
    look at him. The perpetrator directed W.R. to “[p]ut her face in
    the pillow,” after which he removed W.R.’s clothing and used
    rope to bind W.R.’s wrists and ankles. Although the perpetra-
    tor blindfolded the victim with her pillowcase, it was not tied
    tightly and W.R. was able to see around it.
    - 826 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    After W.R. was blindfolded, the perpetrator removed his
    mask and gloves and proceeded to kiss, touch, and digitally
    penetrate W.R. without her consent. The perpetrator also forced
    W.R. to perform oral sex on him, after which he retrieved a
    condom and then vaginally penetrated W.R. without her con-
    sent. At some point throughout the encounter, the individual
    pulled out the knife in his front pocket and cut the ropes bind-
    ing W.R.
    Following the assault, the perpetrator forced W.R. to take a
    shower, telling her that “you’re going to wash your mouth out
    with water at least two times” and that “you’re going to stay
    in there at least five minutes, and then I’m going to be gone.”
    After a few minutes, the perpetrator returned to the bathroom
    stating, “I’m still here.” W.R. complied with the perpetrator’s
    demands, staying in the shower for about 10 minutes until
    she could no longer hear him, after which she immediately
    dressed and drove to a friend’s home. En route, W.R. called
    her friend and explained what had happened. During the call,
    W.R. expressed fear about reporting the assault due to the per-
    petrator’s threats to kill her. However, W.R.’s friend reported
    the assault, and by the time W.R. arrived at her friend’s home,
    paramedics and the police were present.
    W.R. was able to provide law enforcement with specific
    details regarding the assault and the perpetrator because the
    blindfold had not been tied tightly and did not completely block
    W.R.’s vision during the assault. W.R., who at the time was a
    medical resident, described the perpetrator as a white male
    who had disheveled “grayish brown” hair; was approximately
    50 to 60 years old; smelled of cigarette smoke; did not have
    pubic hair; was circumcised; had approximately a ­1-centimeter
    horizontal scar on his abdomen, which W.R. believed to be a
    laparoscopic scar; had a tight and distended abdomen; and had
    what appeared to be another scar running down his chest and
    “around the left side of his belly button.” W.R. provided the
    same identifying characteristics to a sketch artist in order to
    help identify her assailant.
    - 827 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    W.R. also informed law enforcement that she had observed
    a knife in the right front pocket of the perpetrator’s black jeans
    and that the rope used to bind her was white, about 1 centime-
    ter in diameter, and made from an unknown soft material that
    she knew was not twine. The perpetrator wore a black T-shirt,
    a black sweatshirt, and a pair of glasses with either no frames
    around the bottom or very thin frames. W.R. stated that she
    assumed that the perpetrator obtained the condom from a dark-
    colored bag, about the size of a backpack, that he had placed
    near her bed.
    W.R. reported that although the perpetrator wore a mask part
    of the time, she could hear and understand him clearly when
    he spoke. W.R. reported to law enfocement that the perpetrator
    asked her, “[I]s this the first you’ve heard [of] me?” and then
    said, “You need to be more careful. Your garage door didn’t
    close all the way.” She testified he also said that “if [she] ever
    told anybody that he would come and find [her] and kill [her].”
    W.R. told law enforcement that she felt terrified throughout the
    encounter and believed she was going to die.
    2. Investigation
    While W.R. provided information to law enforcement, other
    officers went to the victim’s home which showed no signs
    of forced entry. Officers noted that the bedding in one of the
    bedrooms was disheveled and that there was water alongside
    the shower door. Law enforcement collected evidence from
    W.R.’s home, including a “bunched up” condom that was
    found in bedroom linens where the assault occurred. The con-
    dom appeared to contain a “moisture,” which officers could
    not identify without testing. Law enforcement also collected
    three strands of gray hair located on the bedroom floor and a
    half empty bottle of water. Law enforcement also located eight
    stains in the bedroom, none of which presumptively tested
    positive for semen. During this period of time, another officer
    serving as “stand by” noticed a suspicious white, “four-door
    sedan with LED lights” outside of W.R.’s residence. As the
    - 828 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    officer approached the vehicle, it sped out of the area. Attempts
    to locate the vehicle were unsuccessful.
    During a canvass of W.R.’s neighborhood, law enforcement
    received information regarding a suspicious white vehicle that
    sped away from W.R.’s home on the day of the assault. A
    neighbor told officers that Prior had previously lived in the
    area. The neighbor stated that Prior drove a white Lexus sport
    utility vehicle with a damaged front quarter panel, that Prior
    would drive through the neighborhood at least two to three
    times per week, and that he had last seen Prior’s vehicle at
    about 6 a.m. on October 18, 2017. The neighbor also provided
    law enforcement with two videos from his home surveillance
    camera: a video from October 17 at 6:15 a.m. and a second
    video from October 18 at 6:20 a.m. After determining that
    Prior was the registered owner of a white 2009 Lexus sport
    utility vehicle with Nebraska license plates, officers conducted
    an independent search into Prior and reviewed “field care
    interviews.” One of those interviews led law enforcement to
    Jacquilyn B., who lived in W.R.’s neighborhood and had previ-
    ously reported to law enforcement an interaction that she had
    had with Prior.
    Based on W.R.’s description and Prior’s resemblance to that
    description, officers presented W.R. with a photographic lineup
    containing six photographs, including one photograph of Prior.
    W.R. immediately eliminated three of the photographs, but
    was otherwise unable to affirmatively identify her assailant
    from the three remaining photographs. The three remaining
    photographs included the photograph of Prior. Following the
    ­photographic lineup, Prior was identified as a person of interest
    and law enforcement was instructed to be on the lookout for
    Prior and/or his white Lexus.
    3. Vehicle Surveillance
    On October 19, 2017, a deputy located Prior’s Lexus in
    the parking lot of an apartment complex that was a short dis-
    tance from W.R.’s home. Upon approaching the unoccupied
    Lexus, the deputy observed various items inside the vehicle,
    - 829 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    including boltcutters, a brown wallet, binoculars, duct tape, a
    pair of women’s underwear, leather work gloves, a “messenger
    type bag,” white rope, water jugs, and a sleeping bag. While
    a search warrant of Prior’s Lexus was obtained, Sgt. Greg
    Monico, along with another officer, conducted surveillance
    of the vehicle. During their surveillance, they heard branches
    snapping in the tree line behind them. The pair exited their
    vehicle, identified themselves as law enforcement, and ordered
    the individual to exit the tree line. Although the individual fled
    instead of complying with the officers’ demands, the officers
    observed that the individual was wearing a “blue windbreaker
    style jacket,” a head covering, dark-colored pants, and a knife
    sheath on his or her right side. After losing sight of the indi-
    vidual, officers called for backup, and during an approximately
    10-minute time period, Prior’s vehicle was not under surveil-
    lance. Despite having established a perimeter around the apart-
    ment complex, a “K-9” search of the area, and the search of
    a nearby creekbed, the individual was not located. After the
    search, the bottom of Monico’s pants and his boots were soaked
    and muddy and cockleburs were stuck to his shoelaces.
    After obtaining the warrant to search Prior’s Lexus, law
    enforcement impounded the vehicle, searched it, and seized
    several pieces of white rope, condoms, two folding knives,
    blue nitrile gloves, metal handcuffs, a flashlight, a purse, a
    wallet, two pairs of black gloves, six pairs of glasses, binocu-
    lars, and a stethoscope. Law enforcement also took swabs of
    the steering wheel and gearshift and lifted a fingerprint from
    inside the vehicle.
    4. Arrest
    On October 20, 2017, Prior was arrested pursuant to a war-
    rant at the home of his friend, Donovan Skow. Officers spoke
    to Skow and Kathy Higgins, who was also present. Skow told
    law enforcement that Prior stated that he was in trouble or
    that the police were after him due to the police’s belief that
    Prior was stalking someone. Higgins reported that she was
    Prior’s friend and that, during certain periods of time over
    - 830 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    the previous month, he had been living with her. Higgins indi-
    cated that on October 20, she received a call from Prior asking
    for a ride because his vehicle had broken down. When she
    arrived, Higgins observed that Prior was wearing a black cap,
    had a knife sheath or holder, and looked “rugged, . . . tired,
    dirty, [and] muddy.” She drove Prior to her home, and then
    she left to go to an appointment. When Higgins returned, she
    noticed that her apartment blinds were closed and that Prior
    had been watching the news about law enforcement’s search
    for a suspect. Higgins also informed officers that some of
    Prior’s personal property remained at her home even though
    he had not been living there for the previous week. She further
    stated that Prior had been using her red Chevrolet Aveo since
    October 20. During a search of the Aveo conducted pursuant to
    Higgin’s consent, officers seized a pair of eyeglasses, a knife
    inside a black knife sheath, and wet and muddy dark-colored
    jeans that were consistent with the officers’ description of the
    individual fleeing from the apartment complex on October 19.
    Officers also seized a black gaiter mask, which covers only
    the lower half of one’s face, which was covered in cockleburs
    similar to those found on Monico’s shoelaces after he searched
    the creekbed for the fleeing individual. During a search of
    Higgins’ home to locate Prior’s property, conducted pursuant to
    a warrant, officers seized a pair of gloves, 9-mm ammunition,
    several knives, and various jackets.
    After Prior’s arrest, he was booked into jail and strip
    searched. The deputy performing that search noted that Prior’s
    “genitals [sic] region, testicles, shaft, and above the penis were
    all cleanly shaven. [Prior’s] penis was circumcised and [he]
    had a small scar, approximately half an inch on the left hip.”
    5. Bag Located at Apartment Complex
    On October 21, 2017, a resident of the same apartment
    complex where surveillance of Prior’s Lexus had occurred
    noticed a bag by the garages of the complex and observed that
    no one had approached the bag during a 5-hour timeframe.
    The bag was located directly east of where the surveillance of
    - 831 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    Prior’s Lexus had occurred. The following day, after noticing
    the bag remained in the same place, the apartment complex
    resident grabbed the bottom of the bag and dumped out the
    contents. The contents of the bag included cigarettes, a black
    pouch, a flashlight, zip ties, white rope, a bandage wrap, “KY
    Jelly” lubricant, a 9-mm semiautomatic handgun loaded with
    ammunition, and Prior’s driver’s license and Social Security
    card. The apartment complex resident recognized Prior from
    news coverage regarding the commission of a crime and noti-
    fied his father, who contacted law enforcement. At the time
    law enforcement responded to the call, Prior had already been
    taken into custody. The bag and its contents were collected as
    evidence and were tested for DNA.
    6. Postarrest Interviews With Prior
    Following Prior’s October 20, 2017, arrest, police inter-
    viewed him two times. During the first interview, which
    occurred on October 20, Prior denied involvement and stated
    that on October 19, he was walking to stretch out his legs
    before going to sleep. Prior stated that he slept in his vehicle
    and that on the evening of October 19, someone approached
    his vehicle with a bag and took items from his vehicle, but
    fled when confronted by Prior. Prior told officers that he had
    noticed a large police presence in the area and decided not to
    go back to his vehicle that day.
    During the second interview on October 22, 2017, which
    was conducted at Prior’s request, Prior again denied involve-
    ment, but he stated that he had been distributing marijuana
    and stealing food from open garages. Prior confirmed that he
    previously resided in W.R.’s neighborhood and admitted to
    being in the area to drive by his mother’s house. Prior repeated
    that he had noticed a large police presence on October 19,
    but added that he walked to a gas station where he called
    Higgins to request a ride. Prior acknowledged that he owned a
    white Lexus and that he returned to the apartment complex on
    October 20, but he denied having a bag or being in the woods
    near the apartment complex. During the second interview, after
    - 832 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    granting Prior’s request for a “smoke break,” officers collected
    Prior’s used cigarette butt to test it for DNA.
    7. Search Warrant for Prior’s
    Identifying Characteristics
    In late October 2017, law enforcement sought a court order
    to obtain Prior’s physical characteristics. In support of an ex
    parte court order allowing law enforcement to obtain identify-
    ing personal characteristics from Prior, including hair samples,
    digital voice recordings, and DNA evidence, the law enforce-
    ment officer’s affidavit set forth the following facts: that Prior
    matched W.R.’s description of her assailant, that video surveil-
    lance and witness testimony had placed Prior in the area on the
    day of the assault, that items found inside the bag located at
    the apartment complex near W.R.’s residence included Prior’s
    driver’s license, and that evidence had been located contain-
    ing Prior’s DNA. The affidavit further set forth that W.R.
    had provided information regarding her assailant’s identifying
    marks and characteristics and that, when Prior was arrested
    and booked into jail, officers noticed identifying characteristics
    similar to those described by W.R. The affidavit also stated that
    the officer believed that Prior would not willingly comply with
    a request to obtain evidence from his person because Prior had
    invoked his Miranda rights. After the court granted the request
    to obtain Prior’s physical characteristics, law enforcement col-
    lected hair samples, buccal swabs, photographs, and other iden-
    tifying characteristics from Prior.
    8. Information and Pretrial Motions
    In November 2017, the State charged Prior with 12 offenses
    related to the home invasion and sexual assault: count 1, first
    degree sexual assault; count 2, burglary; count 3, robbery;
    count 4, as amended, use of a firearm to commit a felony; count
    5, first degree false imprisonment; count 6, possession of a
    firearm by a prohibited person; count 7, possession of a stolen
    firearm; count 8, terroristic threats; count 9, theft by receiving
    - 833 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    stolen property; count 10, first degree trespass; count 11, theft
    by unlawful taking; and count 12, habitual criminal. Prior to
    the trial, the State dismissed count 7, possession of a stolen
    firearm, and count 9, theft by receiving stolen property.
    (a) Motions to Suppress
    Before trial, Prior moved to suppress evidence, including the
    search of his bag, evidence obtained during the strip search of
    his person during the jail booking procedure, evidence obtained
    pursuant to the court’s ex parte order requiring him to pro-
    vide physical characteristics, and W.R.’s voice identification of
    Prior as her assailant. The parties entered into a limited stipu-
    lation as it related to Prior’s motion to suppress W.R.’s voice
    identification of Prior. The stipulation indicated that W.R.
    attended pretrial hearings, during which she identified Prior as
    her assailant. The parties agreed that although the State was
    aware of W.R.’s presence at the pretrial hearing, neither the
    State nor law enforcement had requested W.R.’s attendance for
    the purpose of making an identification. Further, the State did
    not provide notice to Prior or defense counsel that W.R. would
    be attending the pretrial hearing.
    The district court denied each of Prior’s motions, including
    finding that Prior lacked standing to challenge the search of
    the bag because Prior had abandoned the bag and therefore did
    not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the bag or its
    contents; that the strip search performed during the booking
    process was conducted pursuant to the Sarpy County sheriff’s
    office’s standard operating procedures (SOP), which proce-
    dures were reasonable to maintain the safety and security of
    those entering the facility and were closely tailored to prevent
    contraband from entering the facility; that the affidavit in sup-
    port of the ex parte order established probable cause for the
    search warrant for Prior’s person; that Prior was given a copy
    of the court order; and that any objection to the search was
    waived by Prior’s consent. Regarding W.R.’s voice identifica-
    tion of Prior, the district court stated:
    - 834 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    The manner and means of identification were not sugges-
    tive, and there is indicia of the reliability prior to in court
    identification, W.R. had ample opportunity to hear [Prior]
    speak. She was adequately able to describe the same to
    law enforcement as to the tone, inflection, and narrative
    of her assailant’s voice. It occurred over a lengthy period
    of time. She has the requisite degree of attention and
    degree of certainty in the matter.
    (b) State’s Motions in Limine
    Prior to trial, the State filed motions in limine requesting a
    hearing to determine the admissibility of evidence concerning
    Prior’s September 23, 2016, contact with Jacquilyn and his
    actions on October 13, 2017, related to Angelique C. The State
    alleged that Prior’s contact with Jacquilyn and his October
    13 actions
    may be considered admissible evidence under [Neb. Rev.
    Stat. §] 27-404 [(Supp. 2019)] and therefore a hearing is
    necessary for the State to provide proof of [Prior’s] acts to
    demonstrate that said acts show proof of Prior’s motive,
    opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, iden-
    tity, or absence of mistake or accident, and are therefore
    admissible under [Neb. Rev. Stat. §] 27-401 [(Reissue
    2016)] and/or 27-404.
    Following a hearing, the court sustained the State’s motions
    in limine, finding the evidence of Prior’s previous conduct
    was admissible.
    (c) Motion to Secure Out-of-State Witnesses
    In August 2020, Prior filed a motion to secure the attend­
    ance of three law enforcement officers from Kansas, alleging
    that they were material witnesses to Prior’s defense. The affi-
    davit by Prior’s counsel suggested that each of the witnesses
    could testify regarding the similarities of the instant case to
    that of cases involving a serial rapist in Kansas and that this
    evidence would support Prior’s claim that he was not the
    - 835 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    perpetrator of the charged offenses. After reviewing the affida-
    vit, the court overruled Prior’s motion to secure the attendance
    of the requested witnesses.
    9. Trial
    The trial was held in September 2020. The State called 23
    witnesses whose testimony was consistent with the facts laid
    out above. The State’s witnesses included W.R., Jacquilyn,
    Angelique, and Monico. We describe short summaries of por-
    tions of the testimony of those individuals and the DNA evi-
    dence adduced by the State as it relates to specific assignments
    of error raised by Prior.
    (a) W.R.
    W.R. testified consistent with the facts above and provided
    an in-court voice identification of Prior. On December 31,
    2018, and July 1, 2020, W.R. attended two pretrial hearings
    open to the public related to the charges against Prior. Prior
    was not notified that W.R. was present at the hearings, but
    W.R. attended in order to prepare for the possibility of testify-
    ing at trial. During the December 2018 hearing, Prior, although
    represented by counsel, spoke. During the July 2020 hearing,
    Prior represented himself, but was assisted by standby counsel.
    W.R. testified that after hearing Prior speak during the pretrial
    hearings, she immediately recognized his voice as being the
    same voice she heard on the night of her assault. W.R. testified
    that she was “positive it’s the same person” and that she would
    “never forget his voice.”
    (b) Jacquilyn
    Prior to Jacquilyn’s testimony regarding her previous
    encounter with Prior, the court gave a limiting instruction
    that Jacquilyn’s testimony was “not to prove the character of
    a person in order to show they acted in conformity with, but
    [the jury] may consider this for other purposes such as proof
    of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge,
    - 836 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    identity, or absence of mistake, or accident in this.” Jacquilyn
    testified that she lived in the same area as W.R. When describ-
    ing the September 23, 2016, encounter, Jacquilyn testified that
    as she returned home and pulled her vehicle into her garage, a
    white four-door Lexus pulled up behind her in her driveway.
    Jacquilyn testified that she exited her vehicle and met the
    individual in her driveway. The individual identified himself
    as Prior and provided her with a business card. During the
    conversation, Prior asked Jacquilyn several “uncomfortable
    personal questions” and told her that she needed to be more
    careful, notifying her and demonstrating to her that a side win-
    dow to her home was unlocked. He offered to fix her broken
    doorbell and asked her how she protects herself. The encounter
    ended with Jacquilyn’s calling the 911 emergency dispatch
    service. The State offered a recording of Jacquilyn’s 911 call,
    which was received over Prior’s objection.
    (c) Angelique and Monico
    Like Jacquilyn’s testimony, Angelique’s testimony was
    accompanied by a limiting instruction from the court. Angelique
    testified that on October 13, 2017, an unknown individual
    approached the back door of her home. Angelique had a door-
    bell security system, which is motion sensor activated and
    records when it senses movement. Angelique contacted law
    enforcement and provided them with the video taken from her
    doorbell security system. In the video, which was received
    and played over Prior’s objection, an individual unsuccessfully
    attempted to open the back door of Angelique’s home while
    wearing a mask around his neck. Monico identified Prior as
    the man depicted in the doorbell security video who attempted
    to open Angelique’s door. Monico further testified that he rec-
    ognized the bag that Prior had on his person in the doorbell
    security video as being the same bag as the one found at the
    apartment complex. Monico also identified the mask that Prior
    was wearing around his neck as being consistent with the gaiter
    mask located in Higgins’ vehicle.
    - 837 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    (d) DNA Evidence
    During the trial, evidence was adduced regarding the results
    of DNA evidence obtained during the course of this case,
    including DNA obtained from the condom found at W.R.’s
    bedroom, rope found in Prior’s vehicle, the gaiter mask found
    in Higgins’ vehicle, and items found within the abandoned bag,
    including rope and black zip ties.
    Regarding the DNA found on the condom, W.R. was not
    excluded as the major contributor and Prior was not excluded
    as a partial profile contributor. The State adduced evidence
    that the probability of an unrelated individual matching the
    profile consistent with W.R.’s profile was 1 in 187 octillion
    and that the probability of an unrelated individual matching
    the profile that is consistent with Prior’s DNA profile was 1
    in 251,000.
    Regarding DNA found on the rope seized from Prior’s vehi-
    cle, Prior was not excluded as the major contributor and W.R.
    was not excluded as a partial contributor. The State adduced
    evidence that the probability of an unrelated individual match-
    ing Prior’s DNA profile was 1 in 239 septillion and that the
    probability of an unrelated individual matching W.R.’s profile
    was 1 in 2.33 billion.
    Regarding DNA found on the gaiter mask, Prior was not
    excluded as a major contributor and W.R. was not excluded
    as a partial contributor. The probability of another individual
    matching Prior’s profile was 1 in 761 octillion, and the prob-
    ability of another individual matching W.R.’s profile was 1 in
    504 million.
    Regarding DNA found on items in the abandoned bag, nei-
    ther Prior nor W.R. could be excluded as contributors of that
    DNA. The probability of another individual matching Prior’s
    DNA profile was 1 in 761 octillion. Additionally, regarding
    the DNA found on the rope located inside the abandoned bag,
    W.R. was not excluded as a full profile contributor and the
    probability of another individual matching that same profile
    was 1 in 16.9 million. Regarding the DNA located on black
    - 838 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    zip ties found in the abandoned bag, the probability that an
    unrelated individual would match Prior’s DNA profile was 1
    in 6.60 septillion and the probability that another individual
    would match W.R.’s profile was 1 in 1.75 trillion.
    Finally, regarding DNA located on the 9-mm semiautomatic
    handgun, Prior and W.R. were not excluded as contributors.
    The probability of another individual matching the same DNA
    profile of Prior was 1 in 11.2 sextillion, and the probability of
    another individual matching the DNA profile of W.R. was 1
    in 5.69 quadrillion. Prior’s DNA was also obtained from the
    interior of the handgun, with a probability of another individual
    matching the same DNA profile being 1 in 761 octillion.
    In sum, W.R. and Prior were included as possible contribu-
    tors on the DNA collected from the condom located inside
    W.R.’s home on her bed; the white rope located on the floor-
    board of Prior’s white Lexus; the black gaiter mask found in
    Higgins’ vehicle; and the additional rope, black zip ties, and
    a 9-mm semiautomatic handgun located in the abandoned bag
    found at the apartment complex where Prior’s vehicle was
    located. Additional items were tested and found to contain
    DNA consistent with Prior’s DNA profile, including several
    items found inside that same bag and Prior’s Lexus.
    10. Jury Verdicts and Sentencing
    Following the trial, the jury found Prior guilty of all nine
    charged offenses. Thereafter, the court determined that Prior
    was a habitual criminal pursuant to 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2221
    (Reissue 2016) and proceeded to sentencing. The court reviewed
    the presentence investigation report for which Prior refused to
    provide any information. The district court considered the
    nature and circumstances underlying the crimes; the history,
    character and condition of Prior; the presentence investigation
    report, which included the victim impact statements; and the
    parties’ arguments. The district court determined that a term of
    imprisonment was necessary for the protection of the public.
    The court imposed the following terms of imprisonment:
    - 839 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    Sentence of
    Count Offense                                      Imprisonment
    1   First Degree Sexual Assault                  45 to 50 years
    2   Burglary                                     15 to 20 years
    3   Robbery                                      20 to 30 years
    4   Use of Firearm to Commit Felony              45 to 50 years
    5   First Degree False Imprisonment              10 to 20 years
    6   Possession of Firearm by Prohibited Person   20 to 30 years
    8   Terroristic Threats                          10 to 20 years
    10   First Degree Trespass                            1 year
    11   Theft by Unlawful Taking ($500 or less)        6 months
    The court stated that each felony conviction “has been found
    to be enhanceable to the habitual criminal, which is [a] man-
    datory minimum of ten years that runs on the sentence. The
    sentence therefore is a period of 165 years to 220 years.” The
    sentences on all counts were ordered to be served consecu-
    tively, Prior was granted 1,163 days’ credit for time served,
    and he was ordered to comply with the Nebraska Sex Offender
    Registration Act. Prior has timely appealed to this court and is
    represented by the same counsel that represented him during
    his trial and sentencing.
    III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Prior assigns, restated, that the district court erred in (1)
    finding that Prior lacked standing to challenge the search of
    his bag, because he had abandoned it; (2) overruling Prior’s
    motion to suppress/motion in limine regarding voice identi-
    fication; (3) allowing the State to adduce evidence of Prior’s
    physical characteristics; (4) allowing 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-404
    (Supp. 2019) testimony of Jacquilyn and Angelique; (5) deny-
    ing Prior’s motion to secure out-of-state witnesses; (6) denying
    Prior’s motion for directed verdict due to insufficiency of the
    evidence; and (7) imposing excessive sentences.
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] When reviewing a trial court’s ruling on a motion
    to suppress based on a claimed violation of the Fourth
    - 840 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    Amendment, an appellate court applies a two-part standard of
    review. State v. Garcia, 
    302 Neb. 406
    , 
    923 N.W.2d 725
     (2019).
    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. State v. Garcia, 
    supra.
    [2] A trial court’s finding that an item of personal property
    has been abandoned, and thus not subject to a reasonable
    expectation of privacy, is reviewed for clear error. See State v.
    Dixon, 
    306 Neb. 853
    , 
    947 N.W.2d 563
     (2020).
    [3] An appellate court reviews the admission of evidence of
    other acts under § 27-404(2) by considering (1) whether the
    evidence was relevant, (2) whether the evidence had a proper
    purpose, (3) whether the probative value of the evidence out-
    weighed its potential for unfair prejudice, and (4) whether the
    trial court, if requested, instructed the jury to consider the evi-
    dence only for the purpose for which it was admitted. State v.
    Newman, 
    4 Neb. App. 265
    , 
    541 N.W.2d 662
     (1996).
    [4,5] Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circum-
    stantial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether
    the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insuffi-
    ciency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case,
    the standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction,
    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, and a conviction will
    be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence
    admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favorably to the
    State, is sufficient to support the conviction. State v. Hassan,
    
    309 Neb. 644
    , 
    962 N.W.2d 210
     (2021). The relevant question
    for an appellate court on review of the sufficiency of evidence
    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 reasonable
    doubt. See State v. Garcia, 
    supra.
    - 841 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    [6,7] An appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed
    within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by
    the trial court. 
    Id.
     In reviewing a sentence imposed within the
    statutory limits, an appellate court considers whether the sen-
    tencing court abused its discretion in considering and applying
    the relevant factors as well as any legal principles in determin-
    ing the sentence to be imposed. State v. Rogers, 
    297 Neb. 265
    ,
    
    899 N.W.2d 626
     (2017).
    [8] Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to direct
    that sentences imposed for separate crimes be served either
    concurrently or consecutively. State v. Brown, 
    302 Neb. 53
    ,
    
    921 N.W.2d 804
     (2019).
    V. ANALYSIS
    1. Standing to Challenge
    Search of Bag
    Prior’s first assigned error is that the district court erred in
    finding that he lacked standing to challenge the search of the
    bag found outside of the apartment complex, because the bag
    had been abandoned. He contends:
    The evidence is clear that [Prior] was arrested prior to
    the witnesses seeing the bag. The bag was full of [Prior’s]
    personal items and in a place and location that he was
    going to return to in order to retrieve it. He clearly had
    a legitimate expectation of privacy in the invaded place
    with the only issue being whether or not he voluntarily
    abandoned it.
    Brief for appellant at 16-17.
    The State asserts that although defense counsel had discus-
    sions with the court at trial about continuing objections made
    in connection with his motion to suppress, Prior failed to make
    specific objections at appropriate times during the trial when
    certain contents of the bag were discussed by different wit-
    nesses. Assuming, without deciding, that Prior preserved his
    objection to the warrantless search of the bag at the time of
    trial, we address Prior’s specific assignments that he retained
    - 842 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    a legitimate expectation of privacy in the bag discovered which
    required a warrant to search the bag.
    [9-11] The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and
    article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution protect individuals
    against unreasonable searches and seizures by the government.
    State v. Piper, 
    289 Neb. 364
    , 
    855 N.W.2d 1
     (2014). However,
    when individuals voluntarily abandon property, they forfeit
    any expectation of privacy in the property that they might
    otherwise have had. State v. Vasquez-Arenivar, 
    18 Neb. App. 265
    , 
    779 N.W.2d 117
     (2010). Because the Fourth Amendment
    does not protect voluntarily abandoned property, a warrantless
    search or seizure of abandoned property does not violate the
    Fourth Amendment. State v. Vasquez-Arenivar, supra. See, also,
    State v. Dixon, 
    306 Neb. 853
    , 
    947 N.W.2d 563
     (2020) (once
    defendant abandons item of personal property making it avail-
    able to police or public, defendant does not retain reasonable
    expectation of privacy in that property for purposes of Fourth
    Amendment protection).
    [12-15] In adopting a framework for determining when
    property has been abandoned, the Nebraska Supreme Court
    reasoned and held as follows:
    Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
    and article I, § 7, of the Nebraska Constitution guarantee
    against unreasonable searches and seizures. A search for
    Fourth Amendment purposes occurs when the government
    violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society
    recognizes as reasonable. But it is well-settled that once
    a defendant abandons an item of personal property and
    makes it available to the police or the public, he or she
    does not retain a reasonable expectation of privacy in the
    property for purposes of Fourth Amendment protection.
    In [U.S. v.] Basinski, [
    226 F.3d 829
     (7th Cir. 2000),]
    the Seventh Circuit held: “To demonstrate abandonment,
    the government must establish by a preponderance of the
    evidence that the defendant’s voluntary words or con-
    duct would lead a reasonable person in the searching
    - 843 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    officer’s position to believe that the defendant relin-
    quished his property interests in the item searched or
    seized. . . . Because this is an objective test, it does
    not matter whether the defendant harbors a desire to
    later reclaim an item; we look solely to the external
    ­manifestations of his intent as judged by a reasonable
    person possessing the same knowledge available to the
    government agents. . . . We look at the totality of the
    circumstances, but pay particular attention to explicit
    denials of ownership and to any physical relinquishment
    of the property.”
    Basinski also explained: “There are three general types
    of abandonment cases, which are based on these two
    indicia of abandonment. The first type is characterized
    by the presence of a fleeing defendant who relinquishes
    an object to make his flight easier or because discarding
    the item might make it easier for him to later claim that
    he never possessed it. . . . Because he has disposed of the
    property in a location that affords easy access to the pub-
    lic, a reasonable person would believe that the defend­
    ant’s possessory interest in the property is so eroded that
    anyone has a right to retrieve it. The second type of case
    is closely related to the first, for in so-called ‘garbage
    cases’ the defendant places material in or near a refuse
    receptacle that is readily accessible to the public, and in
    which he usually places other discarded materials. . . .
    By this conduct and the location of the receptacle, the
    defend­ant leads reasonable people to believe that he no
    longer cares what becomes of his trash, or articles mis-
    taken for trash. In the third type of case, the defendant
    is usually caught red-handed with or near a container
    of contraband, whereupon he denies that the container
    or its contents are his. . . . Taken at face value, this denial
    makes it reasonable to conclude that the defendant claims
    no possessory interest in the items.”
    - 844 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    Similarly, the Eighth Circuit explained in [U.S. v.]
    Nowak[, 
    825 F.3d 946
     (8th Cir. 2016),] how courts are
    to determine when personal property is abandoned:
    “Whether property has been abandoned ‘is determined
    on the basis of the objective facts available to the inves-
    tigating officers, not on the basis of the owner’s subjec-
    tive intent.’ . . . We consider the dual factors of whether
    the defendant physically relinquished his property and
    whether he denied ownership of it. . . . However, a ver-
    bal denial of ownership is not necessary for a finding of
    abandonment, and we reach our ultimate conclusion based
    on the totality of the circumstances.” Nowak further held
    that “[w]hether property is discarded in a public, private,
    or semi-private place is a factor in considering whether
    the property has been abandoned . . . .”
    We agree with the reasoning of Basinski and Nowak,
    and we adopt a similar test for determining abandonment.
    We now hold that to show abandonment of personal
    property for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, the State
    must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that
    the defendant’s voluntary words or conduct would lead a
    reasonable officer to believe the defendant relinquished
    his or her property interests in the item. This is an objec-
    tive test based on the information available to the officer,
    and the defendant’s subjective intent to later reclaim the
    item is irrelevant. When determining whether property
    has been abandoned, courts consider the totality of the
    circumstances, and pay particular attention to the nature
    and location of any physical relinquishment of the prop-
    erty and any explicit denials of ownership. We note this
    test is, in substance, the test applied by the district court
    in this case.
    State v. Dixon, 
    306 Neb. 853
    , 861-64, 
    947 N.W.2d 563
    , 571-73
    (2020). See, also, U.S. v. Sanders, 
    130 F.3d 1316
     (8th Cir.
    1997) (holding that defendant’s statements to officers that he
    did not own bag found on bus on which he was traveling con-
    stituted abandonment for purposes of Fourth Amendment).
    - 845 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    After reviewing the record, we find that the circumstances
    attendant with the bag discovered by the apartment complex
    resident and reported to police meet the characteristics of two
    of the three general types of abandonment cases described by
    the Seventh Circuit and adopted by the Nebraska Supreme
    Court. First, the bag was located by the apartment complex
    resident, who was a member of the public, and the bag was in
    plain view, near the garages of an apartment complex. Having
    noticed the bag the previous day, the apartment complex resi-
    dent then approached the bag and dumped out its contents in
    order to determine whether he could identify the owner. He
    noticed that the bag included Prior’s driver’s license and Social
    Security card and recognized Prior from news coverage regard-
    ing the commission of a crime. He notified his father, who
    contacted law enforcement. The location of the bag was near
    the area where police previously discovered Prior’s vehicle and
    where they searched the woods after hearing someone in the
    woods who then fled from police. Under these circumstances,
    we find it reasonable for the police to conclude that the person
    who fled from them was Prior, who had relinquished the bag
    to make flight easier or because discarding the bag might make
    it easier for him to later claim that he never possessed it or its
    contents. Second, during one of Prior’s postarrest interviews,
    he denied ownership of the bag police claimed was found near
    the area in which they had performed surveillance and located
    Prior’s Lexus, making it reasonable to conclude that Prior
    claimed no possessory interest in the bag or its contents. Under
    these circumstances, we find the court did not clearly err in
    finding that the State provided, by a preponderance of the evi-
    dence, that Prior had abandoned the bag and in denying Prior’s
    motion to suppress. This assignment of error fails.
    2. Motion to Suppress Voice Identification
    Prior next asserts that the district court erred in overrul-
    ing his motion to suppress W.R.’s pretrial voice identification
    of him as her assailant, which identification occurred during
    - 846 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    a pretrial hearing. In his motion to suppress, Prior asserted
    that W.R.’s voice identification of him was improper and
    violated his right to due process and his Sixth Amendment
    right to counsel. The district court overruled his objection and
    allowed W.R. to testify to having recognized Prior’s voice as
    the voice of her assailant when she heard him speak at the
    pretrial hearings.
    [16] On appeal, Prior assigned error to this ruling, but
    he also now asserts that the identification violated his Fifth
    Amendment right against self-incrimination. As we have long
    held, an objection must be specifically stated, and on appeal,
    a defendant may not assert a different ground for his or her
    objection to the admission of evidence than was offered to
    the trier of fact. State v. Childs, 
    309 Neb. 427
    , 
    960 N.W.2d 585
     (2021). Accordingly, we decline to address Prior’s claim
    regarding a violation of his Fifth Amendment right against
    self-incrimination.
    In asserting his due process and Sixth Amendment claim,
    Prior focuses on United States v. Wade, 
    388 U.S. 218
    , 
    87 S. Ct. 1926
    , 
    18 L. Ed. 2d 1149
     (1967), which held that postindictment
    identification procedures arranged by law enforcement—con-
    ducted without notice to, and in the absence of, defense coun-
    sel—were violative of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
    Prior presents no argument that W.R.’s identification of his
    voice involved an unnecessarily suggestive procedure or that
    it lacked reliability. As such, we narrowly examine Prior’s spe-
    cific claim that the pretrial voice identification process violated
    Prior’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.
    In United States v. Wade, 
    supra,
     the U.S. Supreme Court
    addressed the question of whether courtroom identifications at
    trial should be excluded when the accused was exhibited to the
    witness before trial at a postindictment lineup conducted for
    identification purposes without notice to, and in the absence of,
    the accused’s appointed counsel. In analyzing the dangers asso-
    ciated with postindictment lineups conducted for identification
    purposes without counsel, the U.S. Supreme Court stated:
    - 847 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    Williams & Hammelmann, in one of the most comprehen-
    sive studies of such forms of identification, said, “[T]he
    fact that the police themselves have, in a given case, little
    or no doubt that the man put up for identification has
    committed the offense, and that their chief pre-occupation
    is with the problem of getting sufficient proof, because he
    has not ‘come clean,’ involves a danger that this persua-
    sion may communicate itself even in a doubtful case to
    the witness in some way . . . .” Identification Parades,
    Part I, [1963] Crim. L. Rev. 479, 483.
    United States v. Wade, 
    388 U.S. at 235
    . In so finding, the U.S.
    Supreme Court ultimately held:
    Since it appears that there is grave potential for preju-
    dice, intentional or not, in the pretrial lineup, which may
    not be capable of reconstruction at trial, and since pres-
    ence of counsel itself can often avert prejudice and assure
    a meaningful confrontation at trial, there can be little
    doubt that for [the defendant] the postindictment lineup
    was a critical stage of the prosecution at which he was “as
    much entitled to such aid [of counsel] . . . as at the trial
    itself.” Powell v. Alabama, 
    287 U. S. 45
    , 57.
    United States v. Wade, 
    388 U.S. at 236-37
    .
    Prior suggests that the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in
    Wade should apply to W.R.’s voice identification of him, which
    did not involve a state or police organized lineup or voice
    identification procedure. We disagree that such an extension is
    warranted on the facts of this record.
    [17,18] The U.S. Supreme Court’s holding in Wade was
    premised upon the concern of undue suggestion associated
    with the conduct of a state or police in connection with such
    organized practices. But as the Nebraska Supreme Court
    held in State v. Nolan, 
    283 Neb. 50
    , 63, 
    807 N.W.2d 520
    ,
    535 (2012):
    Suppression of identification evidence on the basis of
    undue suggestion is appropriate only where the witness’
    ability to make an accurate identification is outweighed
    - 848 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    by the corrupting effect of improper police conduct.
    When no improper law enforcement activity is involved,
    it suffices to test the reliability of identification testimony
    at trial, through the rights and opportunities generally
    designed for that purpose, such as the rights to coun-
    sel, compulsory process, and confrontation and cross-­
    examination of witnesses.
    Here, W.R.’s voice identification of Prior was not the result
    of an identification procedure arranged by law enforcement.
    W.R. attended a public pretrial hearing of her own volition.
    Under these circumstances, the dangers suggested by the U.S.
    Supreme Court in Wade, which entitled the defendant the right
    to have counsel present, were not at issue here. Because no
    improper law enforcement activity was involved, it was suf-
    ficient to test the reliability of W.R.’s identification testimony
    at trial. We further note that Prior’s counsel, acting as either
    counsel or standby counsel, was in attendance at both of these
    hearings. Prior’s claim that the court erred in failing to sup-
    press W.R.’s voice identification testimony procured through
    her voluntary attendance at a pretrial hearing not arranged by
    law enforcement fails.
    3. Denial of Motion to Suppress
    Physical Characteristics
    Next, Prior alleges that the district court erred in overrul-
    ing his motion to suppress evidence of his personal charac-
    teristics which were obtained (1) during a strip search of his
    person when he was booked into the Sarpy County jail (Prior
    claims that police did not follow the SOP) and (2) pursuant
    to a second search conducted in connection with the district
    court’s October 24, 2017, ex parte order (Prior claims other
    abnormalities). We note that Prior’s assignment of error relates
    only to law enforcement’s obtaining his physical characteris-
    tics, not samples of his hair or DNA. The State again argues
    that this assigned error was not preserved notwithstanding the
    general discussion about preserving objections made in Prior’s
    - 849 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    motions to suppress. Assuming, without deciding, that this
    error was properly preserved, we consider it.
    Prior first simply argues that
    the Court erred in allowing the physical characteristics
    taken pursuant to the strip search of [Prior] when he was
    booked into the Sarpy County Jail. In [its] Order, the
    Court found that the policies and procedures allowed said
    identifying characteristics to be taken. However, this was
    in contravention of the actual policy.
    Brief for appellant at 28. We disagree. A copy of the SOP was
    admitted into evidence. The SOP explicitly states that if an
    inmate “is charged with a crime of violence, escape, burglary,
    or use of a weapon,” it provides reasonable suspicion for strip
    searches at admission to the jail. Prior was arrested and charged
    with multiple crimes, including first degree sexual assault, bur-
    glary, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. These charges
    provided reasonable suspicion for law enforcement to strip
    search Prior upon booking him into jail. Section IV(D)(6)(f) of
    the SOP provides that during a strip search,
    [t]he employee shall visually inspect the inmate for con-
    traband and/or any identifying scars, marks or tattoos,
    and/or any evidence of contagious disease. Areas to be
    inspected shall include:
    (1) Hair, ears, mouth, and nose
    (2) Arms, armpits, and hands
    (3) Abdomen, breasts, back, legs, and feet
    (4) Outer genital and anal areas.
    The deputy that conducted the strip search of Prior in con-
    nection with Prior’s booking noted the key physical character-
    istics on Prior’s stomach and groin area that were described
    by W.R. as being present on her assailant. Because the SOP
    explicitly authorized the deputy conducting the strip search
    to identify such personal characteristics, Prior’s argument that
    they were identified in contravention of this policy fails.
    Prior next argues that the court should have suppressed
    his physical characteristics obtained pursuant to the separate
    - 850 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    search conducted in connection with the court’s ex parte order
    for abnormalities associated with procurement of that order.
    
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3302
     (Reissue 2016) provides:
    Judges and magistrates may issue orders authorizing
    identification procedures for the purpose of obtaining
    identifying physical characteristics in accordance with
    the procedures specified in sections 29-3301 to 29-3307.
    An order may be issued by any judge of the district
    court, Court of Appeals, or Supreme Court for service
    and execution anywhere within the State of Nebraska.
    An order may also be issued by any judge of the county
    court or other magistrate for service within the county
    of issuance.
    However, 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3304
     (Reissue 2016) provides:
    No order shall be required or necessary where the
    individual has been lawfully arrested, nor under any
    circumstances where peace officers may otherwise law-
    fully require or request the individual to provide evi-
    dence of identifying physical characteristics, and no order
    shall be required in the course of trials or other judi-
    cial proceedings.
    Prior argues that in procuring the order under § 29-3302,
    the State failed to show that Prior would have failed to provide
    the desired evidence and that there was no evidence indicat-
    ing a copy of the order was given to him at the time it was
    executed. But Prior’s argument fails for two reasons. First,
    the physical evidence was lawfully obtained from the strip
    search associated with Prior’s booking, making it unnecessary
    to further obtain this authority under § 29-3302. That concept
    is captured by § 29-3304, which explicitly provides that no
    order is required or necessary where the individual has been
    lawfully arrested or under circumstances where peace officers
    otherwise lawfully require or request the individual to provide
    evidence of such characteristics. Because Prior was arrested
    and the SOP lawfully allowed the strip search in which Prior’s
    physical characteristics could be, and were, identified, the
    - 851 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    separate ex parte order was unnecessary and the abnormalities
    suggested by Prior were of no consequence.
    [19] Second, Prior’s claim of abnormality in not request-
    ing permission to review his physical characteristics before
    seeking an order or serving him with a copy of the order are
    without consequence. Assuming, without deciding, that Prior
    would have consented to the search without the order or that a
    copy of the order was not presented to him upon execution, we
    determine that neither circumstance would have resulted in the
    State’s failing to procure the physical attributes complained of.
    We fail to see how Prior’s argument that he would have con-
    sented to the search without an order would somehow bar evi-
    dence procured with an order or which was otherwise validly
    obtained through the strip search conducted before. Appellate
    courts will not reverse a criminal conviction in the absence of
    prejudice to the defendant. State v. Kirby, 
    198 Neb. 646
    , 
    254 N.W.2d 424
     (1977). This argument fails.
    4. Testimony of Jacquilyn and Angelique
    Prior next assigns that the district court erred in allowing the
    testimony of Jacquilyn and Angelique, which was a violation
    of § 27-404.
    [20] 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. State v. Hill, 
    298 Neb. 675
    , 
    905 N.W.2d 668
     (2018).
    [21,22] A trial court has the discretion to determine the rele­
    vancy and admissibility of evidence, and such determinations
    will not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse
    of that discretion. State v. Jennings, 
    305 Neb. 809
    , 
    942 N.W.2d 753
     (2020). Additionally, it is within the discretion of the trial
    court to determine relevancy and admissibility of evidence of
    other wrongs or acts, and the trial court’s decision will not be
    reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. State v. Newman,
    
    4 Neb. App. 265
    , 
    541 N.W.2d 662
     (1996) (abuse of judicial
    - 852 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    discretion means that reasons or rulings of trial court are
    clearly untenable, unfairly depriving litigant of substantial right
    and denying just result in matters submitted for disposition).
    [23] An appellate court reviews the admission of evidence
    of other acts by considering whether the evidence was relevant,
    whether the evidence had a proper purpose, whether the proba-
    tive value of the evidence outweighed its potential for unfair
    prejudice, and whether the trial court, if requested, instructed
    the jury to consider the evidence only for the purpose for
    which it was admitted. 
    Id.
    Section 27-404 provides, in pertinent part:
    (1) Evidence of a person’s character or a trait of his or
    her character is not admissible for the purpose of proving
    that he or she acted in conformity therewith on a particu-
    lar occasion, except:
    (a) Evidence of a pertinent trait of his or her charac-
    ter offered by an accused, or by the prosecution to rebut
    the same;
    (b) Evidence of a pertinent trait of character of the
    victim of the crime offered by an accused or by the pros-
    ecution to rebut the same, or evidence of a character trait
    of peacefulness of the victim offered by the prosecution
    in a homicide case to rebut evidence that the victim was
    the first aggressor. In a sexual assault case, reputation,
    opinion, or other evidence of past sexual behavior of the
    victim is governed by section 27-412; or
    (c) Evidence of the character of a witness as provided
    in sections 27-607 to 27-609.
    (2) Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not
    admissible to prove the character of a person in order to
    show that he or she acted in conformity therewith. It may,
    however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof
    of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowl-
    edge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.
    (3) When such evidence is admissible pursuant to
    this section, in criminal cases evidence of other crimes,
    - 853 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    wrongs, or acts of the accused may be offered in evidence
    by the prosecution if the prosecution proves to the court
    by clear and convincing evidence that the accused com-
    mitted the crime, wrong, or act. Such proof shall first be
    made outside the presence of any jury.
    Here, the State filed a motion in limine to determine the
    admissibility of the testimony of Jacquilyn and Angelique
    under § 27-404. In connection with the motion, the State argued
    that the events described by Jacquilyn and Angelique should be
    admissible because they provided evidence of motive, opportu-
    nity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence
    of mistake or accident as allowed under § 27-404(2). The court
    found that the testimony as to Jacquilyn was admissible as rele­
    vant to show motive, opportunity, and/or intent, preparation, or
    plan. Further, the court found that the probative value of the
    evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. Likewise, the court
    found that the testimony of Angelique was admissible given
    the location of the events which occurred and the nature of
    the circumstances to show proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
    preparation, plan, and identity, and that the value of the testi-
    mony was not outweighed by the prejudicial effect.
    At trial, Jacquilyn and Angelique testified about encoun-
    ters they had experienced with Prior. Jacquilyn testified that
    as she drove her vehicle into her garage, Prior pulled up his
    Lexus behind her in her driveway and began asking her ques-
    tions that made her feel uncomfortable. Jacquilyn testified to
    Prior’s indicating that her back doorbell was broken and that
    her window was unlocked. He asked her how she protects
    herself. Jacquilyn then called 911 to report the encounter.
    Angelique testified that an individual, later identified by police
    as Prior, attempted to open her back door 6 days prior to the
    home invasion robbery and sexual assault of W.R. Angelique’s
    doorbell security camera captured the attempt on video, and
    the police were contacted. The officers were able to identify
    Prior and noticed a bag similar to the one described by W.R.
    The State offered this evidence for a limited purpose, and the
    - 854 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    court accompanied the testimony with limiting instructions that
    it was not to be used to show propensity character evidence.
    Prior argues that under § 27-404(2), “[e]vidence of other
    crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character
    of a person in order to show that he or she acted in conformity
    therewith.” Although Prior acknowledges the remainder of
    § 27-404(2) provides that “[i]t may, however, be admissible for
    other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent,
    preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
    or accident,” he argues that the testimony amounted to propen-
    sity evidence and was not admissible for another purpose.
    Section 27-404 is a rule of inclusion, as opposed to exclu-
    sion, and permits the use of other relevant acts for purposes
    other than to prove that the person acted in conformity with
    their prior acts. See State v. Newman, 
    250 Neb. 226
    , 
    548 N.W.2d 739
     (1996). This court has held:
    In the case at hand, the trial court instructed the jury
    that [testimony by two individuals] was to be received
    for the limited purpose of placing [the defendant] in the
    area described on the date and time described, and for no
    other purpose. We find that not only could the evidence
    be admitted for that limited purpose, but it could also be
    introduced for purposes of establishing identity and plan-
    ning. [The defendant’s] only defense was that the victim
    identified the wrong man as her assailant. Placing [the
    defendant] within blocks of the crime, within hours of the
    crime, seemingly stalking one woman to her apartment
    building and approaching another woman near another
    apartment building, is relevant to the sexual assault of the
    victim, and therefore there was no abuse of discretion by
    the trial court in admitting the evidence.
    State v. Newman, 
    4 Neb. App. 265
    , 281, 
    541 N.W.2d 662
    ,
    674 (1996).
    Similar to the evidence in Newman, the evidence of the
    prior actions described by Jacquilyn and Angelique were
    - 855 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    relevant and admissible because they placed Prior in the same
    neighborhood as W.R. within a relevant timeframe, perform-
    ing similar acts of unauthorized attempted entry into the
    homes of females in the area, in opposition to Prior’s stated
    defense of misidentification. This testimony provides evidence
    of identity and planning, thereby rendering it relevant to this
    specific charge. Nor do we find that this relevant evidence
    was unfairly prejudicial to Prior. The district court did not
    abuse its discretion in admitting testimony from both Jacquilyn
    and Angelique.
    5. Denial of Request to Secure
    Out-of-State Witnesses
    In his next assignment of error, Prior contends that the
    district court erred in overruling his motion to secure three
    ­out-of-state witnesses for his defense.
    
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-1908
     (Reissue 2016), which governs
    the court’s ability to secure out-of-state witnesses, provides
    in part:
    If a person in any state, which by its laws has made
    provision for commanding persons within its borders to
    attend and testify in criminal prosecutions, or grand jury
    investigations commenced or about to commence, in this
    state, is a material witness in a prosecution pending in a
    court of record in this state, or in a grand jury investiga-
    tion which has commenced or is about to commence, a
    judge of such court may issue a certificate under the seal
    of the court stating these facts and specifying the number
    of days the witness will be required.
    [24,25] Process to secure attendance of witnesses from
    another state may not be issued unless the testimony proposed
    to be elicited from such witnesses is relevant to the issues to be
    tried. State v. Casados, 
    201 Neb. 726
    , 
    271 N.W.2d 849
     (1978).
    It is proper to sustain a motion in limine to prevent reference to
    or the offer of evidence concerning matters which are entirely
    extraneous or irrelevant to the issues of the case. 
    Id.
    - 856 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    Here, Prior filed a motion to secure the attendance of three
    law enforcement officers from Kansas. In the motion, Prior
    contended that the witnesses were material and requested that
    the court order them to attend and testify at trial. At the hear-
    ing on the motion, Prior explained that the witnesses would
    be able to testify regarding a series of rapes that had occurred
    in Kansas. The court requested that Prior submit an affidavit
    regarding how the witnesses were material. After receiving the
    affidavit, the court overruled the motion.
    After reviewing the affidavit provided by Prior’s counsel
    to the court in support of his motion to secure the attendance
    of the three Kansas law enforcement officers, we agree with
    the district court that Prior failed to demonstrate the officers
    would provide relevant testimony of matters which were not
    extraneous to the case. In reaching that conclusion, we note
    that within the affidavit, Prior’s counsel failed to provide any
    evidence that the alleged Kansas serial rapist had ever been
    found to act outside of that state, that there was no testimony
    the alleged Kansas rapist had any physical characteristics simi-
    lar to those described by W.R., and that the affiant was lacking
    in any specific evidence that could be considered exculpatory
    of Prior.
    In addition, in State v. Cain, 
    223 Neb. 796
    , 
    393 N.W.2d 727
    (1986), the Nebraska Supreme Court stated that a denial of
    defendant’s request for subpoenas to compel attendance of wit-
    nesses expected to testify to a police informant’s alleged prior
    use of drugs was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, where
    tape recordings provided overwhelming evidence of defend­
    ant’s violations of controlled substance laws. Likewise, even if
    the testimony sought by Prior by his motion could have been
    found to be somehow relevant to Prior’s defense, overruling
    the motion to secure the witnesses’ attendance was harmless
    error due to the overwhelming amount of evidence of Prior’s
    guilt, including, but not limited to, the DNA evidence linking
    Prior to the assault, testimony that Prior was seen in the area
    on both days the assault took place, video surveillance which
    - 857 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    captured Prior’s vehicle in the area, a voice identification of
    Prior by W.R., evidence of Prior’s physical characteristics
    consistent with W.R.’s description of her assailant, evidence
    that Prior had been involved in at least two reported prior
    inter­actions in the area over the last year, evidence that W.R.’s
    assailant smelled of cigarette smoke accompanied by evidence
    that Prior smoked cigarettes, and the physical evidence col-
    lected from Prior’s vehicle, Higgins’ home and vehicle, and
    Prior’s abandoned bag. Even if we found that the district court
    erred in failing to grant Prior’s motion for out-of-state wit-
    nesses, such error was harmless. This assigned error fails.
    6. Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict
    Prior alleges that the district court erred when it denied his
    motion for a directed verdict based on the insufficiency of the
    evidence. He contends that the State’s case was based upon
    circumstantial evidence, the State’s DNA evidence was weak,
    and the court “was swayed by emotion and sympathy and not
    enough hard evidence to find [Prior] guilty beyond a reason-
    able doubt.” Brief for appellant at 38.
    [26] In a criminal case, a court can direct a verdict only
    when there is a complete failure of evidence to establish an
    essential element of the crime charged or the evidence is so
    doubtful in character, lacking probative value, that a finding
    of guilt based on such evidence cannot be sustained. State v.
    Duncan, 
    293 Neb. 359
    , 
    878 N.W.2d 363
     (2016). If there is
    any evidence which will sustain a finding for the party against
    whom a motion for directed verdict is made, the case may
    not be decided as a matter of law, and a verdict may not be
    directed. 
    Id.
    Here, the State presented evidence from W.R. regarding the
    offenses and the description of the perpetrator. W.R. identi-
    fied Prior’s voice as the voice of her assailant, stating she
    was “positive” that it was the same individual and that she
    “would never forget that voice.” Video evidence and witness
    testimony placed Prior near the area on the day that W.R.
    - 858 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    was assaulted, and the abandoned bag included items match-
    ing the description of items used during the assault of W.R.
    Additionally, Prior could not be excluded as a contributor of
    DNA evidence collected at the crime scene, located in the
    abandoned bag, and located in both Prior’s vehicle and the
    vehicle he had borrowed from Higgins in the days preceding
    his arrest. Further, W.R.’s DNA was found on items located
    in Prior’s bag. Viewing this evidence presented in the light
    most favorable to the State, a reasonable trier of fact could
    have found the State proved the elements of the charged
    offenses beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there was evidence
    to sustain a finding for the State, the district court properly
    denied Prior’s motion for a directed verdict. This assignment of
    error fails.
    7. Excessive Sentences
    Prior’s final assignment of error is that the sentences
    imposed were excessive. Specifically, he contends that the
    district court abused its discretion (a) by failing to give proper
    weight and consideration to sentencing factors and (b) in
    imposing consecutive sentences because his offenses, although
    each having unique requirements, all stemmed from the same
    set of facts.
    (a) Consideration of Sentencing Factors
    Before addressing Prior’s claim that the district court abused
    its discretion by failing to give proper weight and consid-
    eration to sentencing factors, we review Prior’s convictions
    and sentences imposed. Prior was convicted of seven felonies
    and two misdemeanors. The court determined that Prior was
    a habitual criminal and sentenced him on his felony convic-
    tions pursuant to § 29-2221, which requires a mandatory
    minimum of 10 years’ imprisonment and a maximum of 60
    years’ imprisonment.
    Prior was convicted of seven felonies and sentenced as
    follows: 45 to 50 years’ imprisonment for first degree sexual
    assault, 15 to 20 years’ imprisonment for burglary, 20 to 30
    - 859 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    years’ imprisonment for robbery, 45 to 50 years’ imprison-
    ment for use of a firearm to commit a felony, 10 to 20 years’
    imprisonment for first degree false imprisonment, 20 to 30
    years’ imprisonment for possession of a firearm by a prohib-
    ited person, and 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment for terroristic
    threats. See, 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-319
     (Reissue 2016) (first
    degree sexual assault); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-507
     (Reissue 2016)
    (burglary); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324
     (Reissue 2016) (robbery);
    
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205
     (Reissue 2016) (use of firearm to
    commit felony); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-314
     (Reissue 2016) (first
    degree false imprisonment); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206
     (Supp.
    2017) (possession of firearm by prohibited person); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-311.01
     (Reissue 2016) (terroristic threats). Each of
    these sentences is within the enhanced sentencing range set
    by the habitual criminal statute of a mandatory minimum of
    10 years’ imprisonment to a maximum of 60 years’ imprison-
    ment. See § 29-2221(1). We note that pursuant to § 29-2221,
    each of these sentences has a mandatory minimum of 10
    years’ imprisonment.
    Regarding Prior’s misdemeanor convictions, the court sen-
    tenced Prior to 1 year’s imprisonment for his conviction of first
    degree trespass, which is within the statutory sentencing range
    for Class I misdemeanors that are punishable by a minimum
    of no imprisonment to a maximum of 1 year’s imprisonment,
    a $1,000 fine, or both. See 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-106
     (Reissue
    2016); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-520
     (Reissue 2016) (first degree
    trespass). The court sentenced Prior to 6 months’ imprison-
    ment for his conviction of theft by unlawful taking ($500 or
    less), which is within the statutory sentencing range for Class
    II misdemeanors of a minimum of no imprisonment and a
    maximum of 6 months’ imprisonment, a $1,000 fine, or both.
    See, § 28-106; 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-511
     (Reissue 2016) (theft
    by unlawful taking or disposition); 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-518
    (4)
    (Reissue 2016) (grading of theft offenses).
    [27,28] Because the sentences imposed were within statu-
    tory limits, we review the sentences imposed for an abuse of
    - 860 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    discretion. See State v. Russell, 
    292 Neb. 501
    , 
    874 N.W.2d 8
    (2016). When imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should
    customarily consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3)
    education and experience, (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 com-
    mission of the crime. State v. Mora, 
    298 Neb. 185
    , 
    903 N.W.2d 244
     (2017). However, the sentencing court is not limited to any
    mathematically applied set of factors. 
    Id.
     The appropriateness
    of a sentence is necessarily a subjective judgment and includes
    the sentencing judge’s observation of the defendant’s demeanor
    and attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
    defendant’s life. 
    Id.
    Here, the district court considered the serious nature and
    circumstances of the offenses; Prior’s history, character, and
    condition; the information contained in the presentence inves-
    tigation report; and statements received by the court, including
    the victim impact statement. The court noted that Prior was 56
    years old, was “separated,” had obtained a diploma through
    the GED program, and was unemployed due to his incar-
    ceration. Prior’s criminal history includes convictions of three
    counts of burglary, two counts of robbery, and one count of
    second degree forgery. The court did not have any “LS/CMI”
    scorings because Prior failed to complete his paperwork for
    the presentence investigation. The district court determined
    that a term of imprisonment was necessary for the protection
    of the public. An appellate court will not disturb a sentence
    imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of dis-
    cretion by the trial court. State v. Garcia, 
    302 Neb. 406
    , 
    923 N.W.2d 725
     (2019).
    In sum, we determine the district court did not abuse its dis-
    cretion in imposing the sentences. This determination is based
    upon the following factors: the district court’s imposition of
    sentences that were within the appropriate statutory sentenc-
    ing ranges as enhanced under the habitual criminal statute;
    - 861 -
    Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
    30 Nebraska Appellate Reports
    STATE v. PRIOR
    Cite as 
    30 Neb. App. 821
    the district court’s consideration of appropriate factors; Prior’s
    criminal history; Prior’s failure to take responsibility for the
    offenses; the seriousness of the offenses; and the physical,
    mental, and emotional injuries sustained by the victim.
    (b) Imposition of Consecutive Sentences
    Prior also contends that the district court erred in impos-
    ing consecutive, rather than concurrent, sentences and that by
    doing so, the district court was “overly punitive” in ordering
    all the sentences to be served consecutively. Brief for appellant
    at 41. Prior claims that his convictions, although each having
    “their own unique requirements . . . are all part of the overall
    crime. At some point, the [district court] is just piling on time
    when it runs [the sentences] all consecutively.” Id. at 40.
    Generally, it is within a trial court’s discretion to direct that
    sentences imposed for separate crimes be served either con-
    currently or consecutively. State v. Brown, 
    302 Neb. 53
    , 
    921 N.W.2d 804
     (2019). As Prior acknowledges in his brief, each
    of the offenses for which he stands convicted have “their own
    unique requirements,” or stated another way, Prior’s convic-
    tions involve separate elements even though they were part
    of the same series of events. The district court therefore had
    the discretion to impose consecutive sentences, and it did not
    abuse its discretion in doing so. Prior’s claim that his sentences
    were excessive fails.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons stated above, we affirm Prior’s convictions
    and sentences.
    Affirmed.