State v. Davis , 310 Neb. 865 ( 2022 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    03/25/2022 09:07 AM CDT
    - 865 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Raymond T. Davis, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed February 4, 2022.   No. S-21-224.
    1. Indictments and Informations. Whether an information is fatally
    defective is a question of law.
    2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. Appellate courts independently review
    questions of law decided by a lower court.
    3. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal
    conviction for a sufficiency of the evidence claim, whether the evidence
    is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the
    same: An appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass
    on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are
    for the finder of fact. The relevant question is whether, after viewing the
    evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier
    of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
    reasonable doubt.
    4. Indictments and Informations: Appeal and Error. An information
    first questioned on appeal must be held sufficient unless it is so defec-
    tive that by no construction can it be said to charge the offense for
    which the accused was convicted.
    5. Indictments and Informations. A complaint or information is fatally
    defective only if its allegations can be true and still not charge a crime.
    6. ____. An information must allege each statutorily essential element of
    the crime charged, expressed in the words of the statute which prohibits
    the conduct charged as a crime or in language equivalent to the statutory
    terms defining the crime charged.
    7. Witnesses: Impeachment. Generally, the credibility of a witness may
    be attacked by any party, including the party who called the witness.
    8. Trial: Verdicts: Appeal and Error. Harmless error review looks to the
    basis on which the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry
    is not whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty verdict
    - 866 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    would surely have been rendered, but, rather, whether the actual guilty
    verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely unattributable to
    the error.
    Appeal from the District Court for Sarpy County: Stefanie
    A. Martinez, Judge. Affirmed.
    Kelly S. Breen, of Nebraska Commission on Public
    Advocacy, for appellant.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Matthew Lewis
    for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke,
    Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
    Papik, J.
    Following a robbery that resulted in the victim’s death,
    Raymond T. Davis was convicted of three felonies: first degree
    murder, conspiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly
    weapon other than a firearm to commit a felony. On direct
    appeal, Davis challenges the sufficiency of the information’s
    charge of conspiracy, the sufficiency of the evidence to convict
    him, and the State’s alleged impeachment of its own witness.
    Discerning no basis for reversal, we affirm.
    BACKGROUND
    Information.
    In 2018, Brent Quigley was found dead, apparently from
    stab wounds sustained during a home robbery. Following an
    investigation, Davis was among multiple people charged in the
    district court for Sarpy County in connection with Quigley’s
    death.
    Davis was charged by information with the following fel­
    onies: first degree murder, in violation of 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-303
     (Cum. Supp. 2020); robbery, in violation of 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-324
    (1) (Reissue 2016); conspiracy to commit
    robbery, in violation of 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-202
     (Cum. Supp
    2020); and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to
    - 867 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    commit a felony, in violation of 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205
    (1)(a)
    (Reissue 2016).
    Relevant here, the conspiracy charge stated:
    COUNT 3: CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT ROBBERY
    On or about the 24th day of June, 2018, . . . Davis,
    with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of
    a felony, did agree with one or more persons that they or
    one or more of them would engage in or solicit the con-
    duct or cause or solicit the result specified by the defini-
    tion of the offense of Robbery, and he or another person
    with whom he conspired did commit an overt act, to-wit:
    Robbery in pursuance of the conspiracy, in violation of
    Section 28-202 . . . (CLASS II FELONY)[.]
    Before trial, the district court dismissed the robbery charge on
    the State’s motion.
    Evidence of Charged Crimes.
    At Davis’ jury trial, the State presented evidence that Quigley
    was discovered on June 26, 2018, dead in his home amid signs
    of a struggle. An autopsy later determined that he had sustained
    numerous stab wounds, resulting in his death about 3 days
    before his body was found.
    The investigation led to the arrests of Christopher Reagan
    and Alisia Cooke. Based on interviews with Reagan and Cooke,
    investigators identified Davis as an additional suspect. Davis
    was subsequently arrested in another state.
    At Davis’ trial, Cooke testified for the State. She testi-
    fied that a week before Quigley’s murder, she and Reagan
    were “trying to come up with ways to come up with money.”
    After discussing various options, they settled on robbery.
    Cooke testified that at some point, Davis joined the discus-
    sion. According to Cooke, she talked to Reagan and Davis
    about her starting a social media account to obtain invitations
    to men’s homes to exchange sex for money. Cooke testified
    that the three of them also discussed, as part of their plan, that
    once she gained access to a would-be victim’s residence, she
    - 868 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    would use text messaging to inform Reagan and Davis about
    the layout, any valuables, and whether there were other people
    or animals inside.
    Cooke testified that on June 24, 2018, Quigley contacted
    her via the social media account Cooke set up to carry out
    the robbery plans. Quigley asked Cooke to have sex and get
    high with him in exchange for money. Cooke testified that she
    told Reagan and Davis that she was going to Quigley’s house
    and that, based on her knowledge of Quigley, “if they wanted
    to rob somebody, that this is going to be the person.” Cooke
    testified that both Reagan and Davis agreed to go with her to
    Quigley’s house to rob him.
    Cooke testified that she, Reagan, and Davis rode in the
    same vehicle to Quigley’s neighborhood. While parked down
    the street from Quigley’s residence, together, they finalized
    their plans. According to Cooke, they all willingly agreed that
    she would enter Quigley’s house, text message Reagan and
    Davis to let them know she was inside, and make sure the
    door remained unlocked so that Reagan and Davis could knock
    Quigley unconscious and restrain him. While Cooke was still
    in the vehicle, Reagan and Davis looked for objects to use “to
    help knock [Quigley] out,” and a blue “Mag-Lite” flashlight
    was placed in a backpack.
    Cooke testified that after Quigley let her in, they began
    to use drugs. According to records received in evidence and
    Cooke’s testimony, Cooke exchanged social media messages
    with Davis shortly before 9 a.m on June 24, 2018. In the mes-
    sages, Davis told Cooke to let him and Reagan know when
    she was inside, confirmed the location of Quigley’s dog, and
    instructed Cooke to “[t]ake him to the bedroom.” Cooke testi-
    fied that she took Quigley to the bedroom and that Reagan and
    Davis entered through the unlocked door, as planned. Reagan
    then attacked Quigley in the bedroom. Cooke testified that
    at one point, she saw Davis holding “a kitchen knife — or a
    butcher block.” Cooke went to another area of the house to use
    drugs; from there, she heard sounds of a struggle, including
    - 869 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    someone yelling, “‘Ow,’” and someone saying, “‘Get him.
    Hold him.’”
    Cooke testified that after a “little while,” Reagan and Davis
    checked on Cooke, and the three remained in the house for a
    time, using drugs, while Quigley was lying on the floor. Cooke
    testified that Reagan and Davis stole several items from the
    house, including drugs and electronics, which the three divided
    and used or sold. In subsequent social media messages to
    Cooke, Davis expressed interest in keeping a video projector
    and a knife.
    Cooke was arrested soon after. At trial, she acknowledged
    that she initially “lied to” investigators about “[p]retty much
    everything,” but testified that she eventually told them “what
    really happened.” Cooke also admitted to lying in an earlier
    deposition about her history of prostitution and acknowledged
    her criminal history involving dishonesty. She also testified that
    she used methamphetamine daily prior to her arrest. Cooke’s
    testimony at Davis’ trial was part of her plea agreement for
    charges related to Quigley’s death.
    In addition to the social media messages Davis exchanged
    with Cooke while she was inside Quigley’s residence, the
    State presented text messages that corroborated Cooke’s ver-
    sion of events, including text messages between Cooke and
    Reagan referring to Davis’ involvement in the plan. The State
    also presented evidence that there was activity from Davis’,
    Cooke’s, and Reagan’s cell phones on cell towers in the vicin-
    ity of Quigley’s house on June 24, 2018, between 10:30 and
    11:02 a.m.
    DNA testing could not exclude Reagan, Davis, Cooke, or
    Quigley as contributors to the DNA profiles obtained from
    swabs of a knife found under Quigley’s leg. (Investigators
    determined this knife was not the murder weapon; their inves-
    tigation showed that Reagan and Cooke gave the knife used to
    kill Quigley to an acquaintance for disposal.) Quigley could
    not be excluded as a DNA contributor to bloodstains found
    on jeans discovered in the vehicle Davis was using at the time
    - 870 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    of his arrest; the jeans were in a backpack along with paper-
    work belonging to Davis. Quigley could not be excluded as a
    DNA contributor to suspected blood evidence on a blue “Mag-
    Lite” flashlight found at the crime scene.
    State’s Impeachment of Own Witness.
    The State called Julie Skalberg to testify at trial. Skalberg
    identified herself as a friend of Davis’ mother. She testified that
    on June 26, 2018, Davis and a female companion called her,
    and later, they arrived at her residence in Des Moines, Iowa.
    Davis communicated to Skalberg that he wanted to take her up
    on her previous offer to help him “get a fresh start of things.”
    It is apparent from the record that, with respect to several sub-
    jects, Skalberg did not testify as the State anticipated.
    On direct examination, the prosecutor asked Skalberg if
    Davis told her where he was coming from, and Skalberg
    answered, “He did not.” The prosecutor then produced a copy
    of Skalberg’s handwritten statement to law enforcement and
    asked her to review its contents. Skalberg reviewed the state-
    ment, which was not offered or received in evidence, and then
    stated, “I thought that [Davis] had told me that he had c[o]me
    from Council Bluffs, [Iowa,] but I cannot 100 percent say that’s
    what — where he told [me] he came from. I just had assumed
    that. They never really gave me a direct point of where they
    were coming from.”
    After this statement, the prosecutor was about to continue
    questioning Skalberg by quoting from her statement to police,
    when defense counsel objected on the grounds that the state-
    ment to police was hearsay. The prosecutor said, “I’m actually
    impeaching her now, because I just showed her a document
    that she said was her statement.” Defense counsel responded
    that the State had not “shown a need” to impeach its own wit-
    ness and that “there has been nothing inculpatory said by her,
    nothing exculpatory said by her.” The district court overruled
    Davis’ objection.
    - 871 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    The prosecutor continued questioning Skalberg, “Isn’t it true
    that, in your statement, you wrote that [Davis and his compan-
    ion] both said that they had — that things were getting crazy
    in Council Bluffs?” Skalberg agreed that was what she said and
    clarified that Davis and his companion “really didn’t” tell her
    where they had come from, “[t]hey just said that things were
    getting crazy over there . . . [i]n Council Bluffs.”
    The prosecutor continued direct examination, and Skalberg
    testified that while Davis was at her residence, she gave him
    a backpack. When the prosecutor asked whether Skalberg
    remembered previously saying that she never gave Davis
    a backpack, the district court sustained defense counsel’s
    objection based on improper impeachment, observing that the
    prosecutor had not used the statement to refresh Skalberg’s
    recollection.
    Skalberg further recalled on direct examination that she saw
    Davis break down and cry a couple of times during his 2-day
    stay at her residence. Skalberg testified that Davis told her he
    was crying because “things were getting scary and crazy, and
    he was fearful.” Over defense counsel’s objections based on
    improper impeachment, Skalberg testified that she did not tell
    the police the information she testified to about the backpack
    and Davis’ crying.
    Verdicts and Sentencing.
    The jury found Davis guilty of first degree murder, con-
    spiracy to commit robbery, and use of a deadly weapon other
    than a firearm to commit a felony. The district court accepted
    the verdicts and sentenced Davis accordingly.
    Davis now appeals.
    ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    On appeal, Davis assigns three errors. He contends that
    the information’s charge of conspiracy failed to adequately
    allege that Davis committed an overt act in furtherance of the
    conspiracy and that the evidence was insufficient to support
    - 872 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    his convictions. He also claims that the district court erred by
    allowing the State to impeach Skalberg with her prior hearsay
    statement.
    STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1,2] Whether an information is fatally defective is a ques-
    tion of law. See State v. Craig, 
    181 Neb. 8
    , 
    146 N.W.2d 744
    (1966). Appellate courts independently review questions of law
    decided by a lower court. State v. Harris, 
    307 Neb. 237
    , 
    948 N.W.2d 736
     (2020).
    [3] In reviewing a criminal conviction for a sufficiency of
    the evidence claim, whether the evidence is direct, circum-
    stantial, or a combination thereof, the standard is the same: An
    appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass
    on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such
    matters are for the finder of fact. State v. Williams, 
    306 Neb. 261
    , 
    945 N.W.2d 124
     (2020). The relevant question is whether,
    after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the
    prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the
    essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. 
    Id.
    ANALYSIS
    Was Information Fatally Defective?
    We begin with Davis’ claim that the count of the informa-
    tion charging him with conspiracy to commit robbery was
    fatally defective. We have held that objections to the form
    or content of an information should be raised by a motion to
    quash. State v. Walker, 
    272 Neb. 725
    , 
    724 N.W.2d 552
     (2006).
    Although our record in this case provides no indication that
    Davis challenged the information by filing a motion to quash
    in the district court, we have held that generally, defects or
    omissions in an indictment or information “which are of such
    a fundamental character as to make the indictment wholly
    invalid are not subject to waiver” and thus may be challenged
    for the first time on appeal. State v. Coleman, 
    209 Neb. 823
    ,
    825-26, 
    311 N.W.2d 911
    , 912 (1981). As we will explain
    - 873 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    below, however, only a limited category of defects or omis-
    sions meet this standard.
    [4-6] An information first questioned on appeal must be held
    sufficient unless it is so defective that by no construction can
    it be said to charge the offense for which the accused was con-
    victed. State v. Theisen, 
    306 Neb. 591
    , 
    946 N.W.2d 677
     (2020).
    A complaint or information is fatally defective only if its alle-
    gations can be true and still not charge a crime. 
    Id.
     An informa-
    tion must allege each statutorily essential element of the crime
    charged, expressed in the words of the statute which prohibits
    the conduct charged as a crime or in language equivalent to the
    statutory terms defining the crime charged. 
    Id.
    Section 28-202(1) provides that a person is guilty of the
    crime of criminal conspiracy if, with intent to promote or
    facilitate the commission of a felony:
    (a) He [or she] agrees with one or more persons that
    they or one or more of them shall engage in or solicit the
    conduct or shall cause or solicit the result specified by the
    definition of the offense; and
    (b) He [or she] or another person with whom he [or
    she] conspired commits an overt act in pursuance of the
    conspiracy.
    Given this statutory definition, an information charging the
    crime of criminal conspiracy must expressly allege one or more
    overt acts. See State v. Marco, 
    230 Neb. 355
    , 
    432 N.W.2d 1
    (1988). See, also, 
    Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2014
     (Reissue 2016).
    In this case, Davis contends that the information failed to do
    so. Although he acknowledges that the information identified
    an overt act—“Robbery[,] in pursuance of the conspiracy, in
    violation of [§] 28-202”—he takes the position that the State
    may not, as it did here, allege that robbery was both the object
    of the conspiracy and an overt act committed in pursuance
    thereof. We disagree.
    In support of his argument, Davis relies on State v. McKay,
    No. A-92-057, 
    1993 WL 13458
     (Neb. App. Jan. 26, 1993) (not
    approved for permanent publication). In that case, the criminal
    - 874 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    conspiracy charge asserted that the defendant agreed with one
    or more other people that they would “‘harvest more than one
    pound of marijuana’” and that the defendant or one or more
    of the other alleged conspirators committed “‘an overt act
    in pursuance of the conspiracy, to-wit: Defendant along with
    [another person] conspired together to harvest and possess
    more than one pound of marijuana.’” Id. at *1. The Nebraska
    Court of Appeals found that the information was fatally defec-
    tive. It explained that the information impermissibly identified
    the alleged conspirators’ act of “conspir[ing] together” as the
    overt act. Id. at *2.
    This case is distinguishable from McKay. While McKay
    found that a criminal conspiracy charge may not allege that
    a defendant agreed with others to commit a criminal offense
    and then identify that agreement as the overt act in furtherance
    of the conspiracy, the information at issue here did not do so.
    Rather, it alleged that Davis agreed with others to commit rob-
    bery and then identified robbery as an overt act in furtherance
    of that agreement.
    Davis does not direct us to any cases in which a court has
    held that an information cannot allege that the same crime was
    both the object of the conspiracy and an overt act commit-
    ted in pursuance thereof. And in fact, our recent decision in
    State v. Theisen, 
    306 Neb. 591
    , 
    946 N.W.2d 677
     (2020), runs
    to the contrary. In Theisen, the defendant faced conspiracy
    charges for the underlying offenses of delivery or distribution
    of hydrocodone and tramadol. The overt act alleged was “‘buy-
    ing and/or selling [hydrocodone and tramadol].’” 
    Id. at 601
    ,
    946 N.W.2d at 685. The defendant argued that to satisfy the
    overt act requirement, the State was required to allege an overt
    act other than the crime the parties conspired to commit. We
    rejected the defendant’s argument and found the information’s
    allegations that the defendant was “‘buying and/or selling
    [hydrocodone and tramadol]’” were sufficient. Id.
    To the extent our decision in Thiesen left any room for
    Davis to argue that the conspiracy charge in this case was
    - 875 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    fatally defective, we would still disagree. One purpose of
    an overt act requirement is to ensure that criminal liability
    attaches only when an agreement to commit a crime has
    advanced beyond “mere talk.” U.S. v. Gigante, 
    982 F. Supp. 140
    , 169 (E.D.N.Y. 1997). We have also recognized that an
    overt act “tends to show a preexisting conspiracy and manifests
    an intent or design toward accomplishment of a crime.” State
    v. Heitman, 
    262 Neb. 185
    , 198, 
    629 N.W.2d 542
    , 553 (2001).
    When one or more conspirators have actually committed the
    offense that is the object of the conspiracy, the agreement has
    certainly advanced beyond the discussion stage and there has
    been an unmistakable manifestation of an intent to accomplish
    the crime.
    Given the foregoing, it is not surprising that consensus
    appears to exist among courts and commentators that pros-
    ecutors may prove that a defendant committed an overt act in
    furtherance of a conspiracy by demonstrating the commission
    of the substantive offense that was the object of the conspiracy.
    See, Word v. United States, 
    589 F. Supp. 806
    , 807 (S.D.N.Y.
    1984) (“the government is free to enumerate and prove, as
    overt acts to a conspiracy count, completed substantive crimes
    which were the object of the conspiracy”); State v. Less, 
    170 W. Va. 259
    , 265, 
    294 S.E.2d 62
    , 67 (1981) (“substantive crime
    which is the object of the conspiracy can be proven as the
    overt act”); People v. Glubo, 
    5 N.Y.2d 461
    , 477, 
    158 N.E.2d 699
    , 709, 
    186 N.Y.S.2d 26
    , 40 (1959) (“[w]hile the overt act
    need not be of itself a criminal act and need not constitute the
    very crime that is the object of the conspiracy . . . nevertheless
    it may well be, and frequently is” (internal quotation marks
    omitted) (emphasis omitted)); 2 Wayne R. LaFave, Substantive
    Criminal Law § 12.2(b) at 375 (3d ed. 2018) (“the overt act
    may be the substantive offense which was the object of the
    conspiracy”). We thus see no reason why the State may not,
    as it did here, satisfy the overt act requirement by alleging the
    substantive offense which was the object of the conspiracy as
    the overt act.
    - 876 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    Sufficiency of Evidence.
    We turn now to Davis’ contention that the evidence was not
    sufficient to support his convictions. When such a challenge
    is made, our inquiry 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. State v. Williams, 
    306 Neb. 261
    ,
    
    945 N.W.2d 124
     (2020). Davis makes no assertion that the
    State failed to present evidence of the essential elements of the
    charged offenses. Instead, Davis argues that we cannot base
    our assessment of the sufficiency of the evidence on Cooke’s
    testimony because of her past history of dishonesty regard-
    ing facts material to Davis’ criminal proceeding. And with-
    out alleging prosecutorial misconduct, Davis submits that the
    State’s reliance on Cooke’s testimony deprived him of a fair
    trial and due process.
    Davis insists that he is not asking this court to reweigh the
    evidence, but we cannot escape the conclusion that this is
    precisely what Davis wants us to do. And “that is not the role
    of an appellate court.” State v. Jones, 
    296 Neb. 494
    , 499, 
    894 N.W.2d 303
    , 307 (2017). The credibility and weight of witness
    testimony are for the jury to determine, and witness credibility
    is not to be reassessed on appellate review. State v. Wheeler,
    
    308 Neb. 708
    , 
    956 N.W.2d 708
     (2021). Cooke’s testimony, with
    all its credibility issues, was presented to the jury for consid-
    eration, and we cannot ignore it. When we evaluate this testi-
    mony along with the other evidence at trial as our standard of
    review requires, without determining its weight or credibility,
    the basis for Davis’ assigned error on this point crumbles.
    The jury was tasked with deciding whether to convict Davis
    of first degree murder, criminal conspiracy to commit rob-
    bery, and use of a deadly weapon other than a firearm to
    commit a felony. See, § 28-303; §§ 28-202 and 28-324(1);
    § 28-1205(1)(a). The crime of first degree murder can entail
    felony murder, that is, killing another person in the perpe-
    tration or attempt to perpetrate a robbery or other specified
    - 877 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    crimes. See, § 28-303(2); State v. Bjorklund, 
    258 Neb. 432
    , 
    604 N.W.2d 169
     (2000), abrogated on other grounds, State v. Mata,
    
    275 Neb. 1
    , 
    745 N.W.2d 229
     (2008). Viewing the evidence in
    the light most favorable to the State and considering the statu-
    tory elements of the crimes charged, we conclude there was
    sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to convict Davis
    on all counts.
    The jury heard Cooke’s testimony that Davis participated
    with Cooke and Reagan in a plan to go to Quigley’s home and
    use force to take Quigley’s property. Davis helped gather objects
    to use to beat Quigley. Once Cooke was inside Quigley’s resi-
    dence, Davis used social media messages with Cooke to ensure
    the scheme went according to plan. While Cooke interacted
    with Quigley, Davis entered Quigley’s residence with Reagan.
    At some point, Cooke observed Davis holding “a kitchen knife
    — or a butcher block,” and after going to another area of the
    house, she heard sounds of a struggle. The next time she saw
    Quigley, he was lying on the floor. As planned, Cooke, Reagan,
    and Davis took items from Quigley’s house. In social media
    messages to Cooke, Davis expressed interest in keeping par-
    ticular items that they had taken.
    Quigley was later found dead from stab wounds. Cooke’s
    version of the events that preceded and followed Quigley’s
    death was corroborated by social media messages, text mes-
    sages, DNA evidence, and other circumstantial evidence. Cell
    towers near Quigley’s house detected activity from Davis’,
    Cooke’s, and Reagan’s cell phones around the time other
    evidence showed they were there. The State presented the
    social media messages that Davis and Cooke exchanged just
    before Davis and Reagan entered Quigley’s residence and
    afterward. DNA evidence showed signs of Quigley’s DNA on
    a blue “Mag-Lite” flashlight found at his house, the same type
    of flashlight Davis helped gather in anticipation of beating
    and robbing Quigley. DNA testing could not exclude Reagan,
    Davis, Cooke, or Quigley as contributors to the DNA profiles
    obtained from swabs of a knife found underneath Quigley.
    - 878 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    Nor could Quigley be excluded as a DNA contributor to blood-
    stains found on Davis’ jeans.
    Abiding by our standard of review, we conclude that the
    evidence was sufficient to support Davis’ convictions and find
    no merit to this assignment of error.
    Impeachment of Own Witness.
    [7] Finally, Davis assigns that the prosecution improperly
    impeached its own witness, Skalberg, with her prior statement
    to police that Davis and his companion told her things were
    “getting crazy” in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Generally, the cred-
    ibility of a witness may be attacked by any party, including
    the party who called the witness. State v. Dominguez, 
    290 Neb. 477
    , 
    860 N.W.2d 732
     (2015). One means of attacking the cred-
    ibility of a witness is by showing inconsistency between his or
    her testimony at trial and what he or she said on previous occa-
    sions, but a party cannot impeach his or her own witness with-
    out limitation. See 
    id.
     Impeachment of a party’s own witness
    by means of a prior statement may not be employed as a “mere
    subterfuge” or for the “primary purpose of placing before the
    jury substantive evidence which is not otherwise admissible”
    when the party is aware prior to calling the witness that the
    witness will not testify consistent with the witness’ prior state-
    ment. 
    Id. at 491-92
    , 860 N.W.2d at 746 (internal quotation
    marks omitted) (emphasis omitted). This rule “focuses upon
    the content of the witness’ testimony as a whole” so that “if the
    witness’ testimony is important in establishing any fact of con-
    sequence significant in the context of the litigation, the witness
    may be impeached as to any other matter testified to by means
    of a prior inconsistent statement.” Id. at 492, 860 N.W.2d at
    746 (internal quotation marks omitted).
    Davis asserts that the State should not have been allowed
    to impeach Skalberg with prior statements to police about
    Council Bluffs, because her testimony as a whole was “trivial.”
    Brief for appellant at 12. However, we question whether the
    State actually impeached Skalberg on this issue with a prior
    - 879 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets
    310 Nebraska Reports
    STATE v. DAVIS
    Cite as 
    310 Neb. 865
    inconsistent statement. Here, Skalberg readily affirmed what
    she had told police and then provided further explanation.
    Skalberg initially testified that Davis did not tell her where he
    had come from. After reviewing her prior statement to police,
    Skalberg testified that she believed Davis had told her that he
    had come from Council Bluffs, but she was not certain, and
    that it was possible she only assumed he was coming from
    there. She then stated that Davis and his companion never gave
    her “a direct point of where they were coming from.” Over
    Davis’ objection alleging improper impeachment, the State
    was permitted to continue, “Isn’t it true that, in your statement
    [to police], you wrote that [Davis and his companion] both
    said that they had — that things were getting crazy in Council
    Bluffs?” Skalberg affirmed that she had made that statement
    to police, but clarified that Davis and his companion “really
    didn’t” tell her where they had come from; “[t]hey just said
    that things were getting crazy . . . [i]n Council Bluffs.”
    [8] Even assuming without deciding that the foregoing
    exchange was improper impeachment by the State, we con-
    clude that any such error was harmless and not grounds for
    reversal. Harmless error review looks to the basis on which
    the trier of fact actually rested its verdict; the inquiry is not
    whether in a trial that occurred without the error a guilty ver-
    dict would surely have been rendered, but, rather, whether the
    actual guilty verdict rendered in the questioned trial was surely
    unattributable to the error. State v. Figures, 
    308 Neb. 801
    ,
    
    957 N.W.2d 161
     (2021). Davis claims that the jury should not
    have heard Skalberg’s statement to police that Davis and his
    companion said things were “getting crazy” in Council Bluffs.
    But we cannot discern how this statement had any bearing on
    the jury’s verdicts. We therefore conclude that the jury’s guilty
    verdicts were surely unattributable to any impeachment of
    Skalberg with her prior statement.
    CONCLUSION
    Finding no merit to the errors alleged by Davis, we affirm.
    Affirmed.