State v. Hernandez ( 2018 )


Menu:
  • Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
    www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
    06/18/2018 02:13 AM CDT
    - 896 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    State of Nebraska, appellee, v.
    Desiderio C. Hernandez, appellant.
    ___ N.W.2d ___
    Filed May 11, 2018.     No. S-17-235.
    1.	 Constitutional Law: Self-Incrimination: Appeal and Error. Whether
    a defendant voluntarily made a statement while in custody and whether
    a defendant unambiguously invoked his or her right to remain silent or
    to have counsel present are mixed questions of law and fact. An appel-
    late court reviews a trial court’s finding of historical facts for clear error
    and independently determines whether those facts satisfy the constitu-
    tional standards.
    2.	 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.
    3.	 Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error. Whether to grant a motion
    for mistrial is within the trial court’s discretion, and an appellate court
    will not disturb its ruling unless the court abused its discretion.
    4.	 Criminal Law: Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error. A mistrial
    is properly granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the
    course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging effect can-
    not be removed by proper admonition or instruction to the jury and thus
    prevents a fair trial.
    5.	 Constitutional Law: Witnesses: Self-Incrimination. The 5th
    Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—applicable to state governments
    by incorporation through the 14th Amendment—protects against com-
    pelled self-incrimination by providing that no person shall be compelled
    in any criminal case to be a witness against himself or herself.
    6.	 Motions to Suppress: Self-Incrimination: Proof. To overcome a
    motion to suppress, the prosecution has the burden to prove by a pre-
    ponderance of the evidence that incriminating statements by the accused
    were voluntarily given and not the product of coercion.
    - 897 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    7.	 Confessions: Police Officers and Sheriffs. In determining whether an
    accused’s statement was given freely and voluntarily, courts examine
    police conduct in light of the totality of the circumstances.
    8.	 ____: ____. Coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to a finding
    that a confession is not voluntary.
    9.	 Miranda Rights: Waiver: Words and Phrases. To be a valid waiver
    of Miranda rights, the waiver must be knowing and voluntary. A waiver
    is knowing if it is made with a full awareness of both the nature of the
    right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision to abandon
    it. A waiver is voluntary if it is the product of a free and deliberate
    choice rather than through intimidation, coercion, or deception.
    10.	 Miranda Rights: Waiver. An express waiver of a suspect’s Miranda
    rights is not required to be made in writing; an oral waiver is sufficient.
    11.	 ____: ____. Where the prosecution shows that a Miranda warning was
    given and that it was understood by the accused, an accused’s uncoerced
    statement establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.
    12.	 ____: ____. Statements prefaced by equivocal words like “I think,”
    “maybe,” or “I believe” generally do not constitute a clear, unambigu-
    ous, and unequivocal invocation.
    13.	 Evidence: Words and Phrases. To be relevant, evidence must be pro-
    bative and material. Evidence is probative if it has any tendency to make
    the existence of a fact more or less probable than it would be without the
    evidence. A fact is material if it is of consequence to the determination
    of the case.
    14.	 Rules of Evidence: Words and Phrases. In the context of Neb. Evid.
    R. 403, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 27-403 (Reissue 2016), unfair prejudice means
    an undue tendency to suggest a decision based on an improper basis.
    15.	 Convictions: Other Acts: Appeal and Error. When considering
    whether evidence of other acts is unfairly prejudicial, an appellate court
    considers whether the evidence tends to make conviction of the defend­
    ant more probable for an incorrect reason.
    16.	 Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys: Words and Phrases. Generally, pros-
    ecutorial misconduct encompasses conduct that violates legal or ethical
    standards for various contexts because the conduct will or may under-
    mine a defendant’s right to a fair trial.
    17.	 Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys: Due Process. Prosecutorial misconduct
    prejudices a defendant’s right to a fair trial when the misconduct so
    infects the trial that the resulting conviction violates due process.
    18.	 Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys. Prosecutors generally may not give their
    personal opinions on the veracity of a witness or the guilt or innocence
    of the accused. The principle behind this rule is that the prosecutor’s
    opinion carries with it the imprimatur of the government and may
    - 898 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    induce the jury to trust the government’s judgement rather than its own
    view of the evidence.
    19.	   ____: ____. When a prosecutor’s comments rest on reasonably drawn
    inferences from the evidence, the prosecutor is permitted to present a
    spirited summation that a defense theory is illogical or unsupported by
    the evidence and to highlight the relative believability of witnesses for
    the State and the defense.
    20.	   Juries: Prosecuting Attorneys. Prosecutors should not make statements
    or elicit testimony intended to focus the jury’s attention on the qualities
    and personal attributes of the victim.
    21.	   Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys. Whether prosecutorial misconduct is
    prejudicial depends largely upon the context of the trial as a whole.
    22.	   Trial: Prosecuting Attorneys: Appeal and Error. In determining
    whether a prosecutor’s improper conduct prejudiced the defendant’s
    right to a fair trial, an appellate court considers the following factors:
    (1) the degree to which the prosecutor’s conduct or remarks tended to
    mislead or unduly influence the jury, (2) whether the conduct or remarks
    were extensive or isolated, (3) whether defense counsel invited the
    remarks, (4) whether the court provided a curative instruction, and (5)
    whether the strength of the evidence supporting the conviction.
    Appeal from the District Court for Richardson County:
    Daniel E. Bryan, Jr., Judge, Retired. Affirmed.
    Robert W. Kortus, of Nebraska Commission on Public
    Advocacy, for appellant.
    Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, and Erin E. Tangeman
    for appellee.
    Heavican, C.J., Cassel, Stacy, and Funke, JJ., and Colborn
    and Samson, District Judges.
    Samson, District Judge.
    I. INTRODUCTION
    A confession may not be used in a criminal prosecution
    if it was obtained through police coercion rather than volun-
    tarily made. The appellant, who was convicted of first degree
    murder, argues that his confession was not voluntary, because
    he was still under the influence of the methamphetamine he
    - 899 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    smoked the day before. Because we find no police coercion,
    we conclude it was voluntary.
    The appellant also claims that prior to his confession, he
    did not voluntarily waive his right to remain silent, but instead
    invoked that right during his interview with law enforcement.
    After a review of the evidence, we conclude that the appel-
    lant understood his rights, yet still agreed to speak with law
    enforcement. We also find that the appellant’s statement that
    he would “probably stop talking” was not an unequivocal invo-
    cation of the right to remain silent. We also conclude that the
    district court did not abuse its discretion by not redacting some
    of the statements in the interview.
    Finally, we conclude that the prosecuting attorney made
    several inappropriate comments during his closing arguments.
    However, the district court did not abuse its discretion by not
    declaring a mistrial, in part because of the strength of the evi-
    dence supporting the convictions.
    II. BACKGROUND
    Desiderio “Desi” C. Hernandez was charged with first
    degree murder (a Class I or IA felony),1 use of a firearm to
    commit a felony (a Class IC felony),2 and possession of a fire-
    arm by a prohibited person (a Class ID felony).3 All of these
    charges were made in connection with the death of his cousin,
    Joseph “Joey” A. Debella, Jr. A 5-day jury trial was held. The
    following evidence was adduced.
    1. The Brownell House
    Debella moved to Falls City, Nebraska, in the summer
    of 2015. Shortly thereafter, Debella began staying at Jason
    Brownell’s house (the Brownell house). Several other individ­
    uals also stayed there or visited frequently, including John
    Hall, Brett Winters, David McPherson, Jeff Morley, and
    1
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-303 (Supp. 2017).
    2
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1205(1)(c) (Reissue 2016).
    3
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1206(3)(b) (Reissue 2016).
    - 900 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    Hernandez. Debella lived in the basement. All other residents,
    including Hernandez, slept upstairs.
    Evidence suggested that methamphetamine was sold in the
    house on a daily basis and that everyone in the house was
    involved in drug sales, including Hernandez and Debella. One
    house resident testified that Debella was the primary dealer of
    methamphetamine.
    2. August 4, 2015
    Hall and McPherson testified to the events leading up to
    the discovery that Debella had been shot. On the evening of
    August 4, 2015, Hall and McPherson were smoking metham-
    phetamine in Hall’s bedroom in the Brownell house when they
    heard what sounded like a gunshot. According to McPherson,
    he said to Hall, “‘was that a gunshot I just heard?’” to which
    Hall replied, “‘Yeah. They’re probably shooting that gun in the
    basement, again.’”
    A few minutes later, Hernandez opened the door to Hall’s
    bedroom and asked if they wanted to go to the basement to
    smoke. Hall accepted the invitation, but shortly afterward,
    Hernandez left out the front door.
    After Hernandez left, Hall yelled downstairs to Debella.
    Debella did not answer. Hall then heard “fast” breathing and
    went downstairs to discover Debella lying on the floor and
    shaking, with blood coming out of his head and blood on the
    floor. Hall yelled to McPherson that Debella had been shot and
    told McPherson to call the 911 emergency dispatch service.
    McPherson testified that he did not call 911, because it was
    not his house and he did not want to get involved. Instead,
    McPherson went to Brownell’s workplace to tell Brownell
    about Debella.
    McPherson and Hall testified that they did not hear anyone
    entering or leaving the house from the time they arrived to the
    time Hernandez left. Winters arrived at the house around the
    time that McPherson was leaving.
    Hernandez’ sister, Esperanza Ogden, also testified as to her
    recollections of that night. She testified that Hernandez came
    - 901 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    to her house at approximately 11:40 p.m. Hernandez gave
    Ogden a cigarette and said, “‘That will probably be the last
    cigarette I ever give you.’” Hernandez then told Ogden he had
    shot Debella and indicated he had shot him in the forehead.
    Hernandez then walked away.
    Ogden then called her and Hernandez’ brother and sister-in-
    law, who also lived in Falls City, to tell them what Hernandez
    had said. Minutes later, Hernandez arrived at their house.
    When he arrived, the brother and sister-in-law were on the
    front porch. From the sidewalk, Hernandez said, “‘I shot
    that motherfucker.’” The brother asked why, and Hernandez
    replied, “‘His bitch shouldn’t have been late.’” Hernandez also
    said, “‘I told you guys I wasn’t fucking around.’” According to
    the sister-in-law, as Hernandez was walking away, he sarcasti-
    cally said, “‘Somebody should probably call 911. It’s been at
    least ten minutes now.’” The sister-in-law testified that dur-
    ing the time Hernandez was at their house (about a minute),
    Hernandez was “hopping around” and could not keep still
    from adrenaline.
    After Hernandez left, the sister-in-law called Ogden back
    and said she was coming to get her so they could go to the
    Brownell house together.
    When Ogden and the sister-in law arrived at the Brownell
    house, the front door was locked. As they were knocking,
    McPherson arrived and yelled to Hall to open the door. Soon
    after, Hall and Winters opened the door, and McPherson left.
    Ogden and the sister-in-law entered the house, and they
    could hear Debella’s labored breathing and moaning. Ogden
    described Debella’s breathing as a “death hurl” or “death
    gurgle.” Ogden then went into the basement and found Debella
    lying face down, with blood around his head. She told the
    sister-in-law to call 911.
    3. August 5, 2015
    Police responded shortly after the call. At approximately
    12:15 a.m. on August 5, 2015, a Falls City Police Department
    officer, Jonathan Kirkendall, and another officer arrived at the
    - 902 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    scene. Hall told the officers that Debella was downstairs. When
    Kirkendall arrived at Debella’s side, Debella was still breathing
    laboriously, but when Kirkendall attempted to communicate
    with him, Debella did not respond.
    Kirkendall testified that he did not see any signs of struggle
    in the basement. The officers found some .22-caliber ammuni-
    tion in the basement and a revolver handgun under some blan-
    kets on a futon bed.
    Debella was taken by ambulance to a local hospital and then
    transported by helicopter to a hospital in Lincoln, Nebraska,
    where he was stabilized and placed in an intensive care unit.
    He was kept alive with a life support system. About a week
    later, Debella’s mother decided to remove him from life sup-
    port, after which he died.
    At around 10 a.m. on August 5, 2015, Hernandez went to
    Michael Seager’s house in Falls City. Seager was an acquaint­
    ance of Hernandez, whom Hernandez had gotten into an
    altercation with and had not been in contact with for 6 to
    8 months.
    Hernandez told Seager he had nowhere to go and asked if
    Seager wanted to “hang out” and smoke methamphetamine.
    Seager agreed, and the two spent the day together smoking
    multiple times. At some time during the day, Hernandez asked
    Seager if he could stay in his house and pay rent. Seager
    turned him down.
    Hernandez then called his cousin, Tiffany Gates, who lived
    in Horton, Kansas, which is approximately 35 minutes outside
    of Falls City. Hernandez told Gates that he needed a place
    to stay. At the time Hernandez called, Gates already knew
    Hernandez was wanted in connection with the shooting of
    Debella and told Hernandez that he could come stay with her.
    Gates then got her children out of the house and arranged for
    someone to call the police when she sent a text message indi-
    cating that Hernandez had arrived.
    Seager drove Hernandez to Gates’ house. When they arrived,
    Gates sent the text message. Gates testified that she asked
    Hernandez what happened and that he chuckled and said, “‘I
    - 903 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    got that motherfucker right there.’” Seager testified that he
    overheard Hernandez say to Gates, “‘He was breathing when I
    got there. He wasn’t when I left,’” and he saw Hernandez make
    a gesture like a gun pointed at his forehead. However, Gates
    testified that Hernandez told her Debella was still breathing
    when he left.
    At about 7 p.m. on August 5, 2015, Horton police approached
    the Gates’ residence. Hernandez immediately said to Gates,
    “‘I’m not here’” and ran into the house. Gates told one of the
    officers that Hernandez was inside.
    Hernandez was ordered to come out of the house, but he
    stayed inside. The officers did not enter the house.
    4. August 6, 2015
    After an 8-hour standoff, which included a “SWAT team,”
    Hernandez was taken into custody at approximately 3 a.m. on
    August 6, 2015. A Taser was deployed on Hernandez during
    his arrest.
    After being briefly treated at a local hospital for a small
    laceration on his head and for a Taser prong stuck in his chest,
    Hernandez was medically cleared, turned over to the police,
    and transported to jail at around 3:30 a.m. on August 6, 2015.
    5. Interview With Investigators
    At around 2:30 p.m. on August 6, 2015, Hernandez was
    interviewed by two Nebraska State Patrol investigators, Cory
    Townsend and Nicholas Frederick, in an interview room at the
    Brown County sheriff’s office in Hiawatha, Kansas.
    At the beginning of the video-recorded interview, Townsend
    introduced himself and Frederick and told Hernandez that
    they were from the Nebraska State Patrol. Hernandez asked
    Townsend, “Why am I in Kansas, and you guys are questioning
    me in another state?” Townsend explained that they can ques-
    tion people in other states, but do not have authority to make
    arrests there.
    Townsend told Hernandez that they had an idea about
    what happened between him and “Joey.” Hernandez said,
    - 904 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    “Joey who?” Townsend said, “Joey [Debella,] your cousin.”
    Hernandez said, “What about my cousin?” Townsend said,
    “Tell me your name, please.” Hernandez said, “My name is
    Desi. You just got my name from in there, didn’t you?”
    Hernandez then launched into a long discussion of his fam-
    ily and various topics. After a while, Townsend told Hernandez
    again that he wanted to talk to him about Debella and that he
    needed Hernandez’ cooperation to get his side of the story.
    Hernandez said, “There’s nothing I can tell you guys that can
    help me any more than if I tell you the truth.”
    Townsend told Hernandez that he needed to make sure
    Hernandez knew what his rights were. Hernandez responded,
    “I don’t even know what my rights are.” As Townsend tried to
    proceed with reading Hernandez his rights, Hernandez inter-
    jected and started talking about various off-topic subjects.
    Townsend tried to bring Hernandez back on topic and read
    from a Miranda rights advisory form. He read, “Before ask-
    ing you any questions about the shooting of Joseph Anthony
    Debella Jr., I must advise you and you must understand each of
    the following,” and he read the Miranda rights. He then said,
    “Now [Hernandez], did you understand those?” Hernandez
    said, “Yeah, I’m still focusing on the shooting.” Townsend
    said, “Do you want me to explain or to repeat any of that?”
    Hernandez shook his head “no.”
    Townsend then read the bottom of the form, which stated
    that Hernandez had been advised of his rights and was will-
    ing to answer questions. He told Hernandez that there are
    two sides to every story and that Townsend wanted to get
    Hernandez’ side of the story. Pointing to the line on the rights
    advisory form that read “the shooting of Joseph Anthony
    Debella, Jr.,” Hernandez said, “That right there is . . . some-
    body’s mistake somewhere.” He said he heard that “something
    happened at that house,” but that no one told him what hap-
    pened. He then asked Townsend to tell him.
    Hernandez started talking about his family and other topics.
    Townsend tried to bring Hernandez’ attention back to the advi-
    sory form. The following colloquy occurred:
    - 905 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    Townsend: Because of my job as a police officer, I live
    by a lot of rules. And I have expectations. And I live by
    upholding the rights of individuals. Ok?
    Hernandez: And because of my job as a civilian I live
    by a lot of rules. I respect them a lot more than I prob-
    ably should.
    Townsend: And that’s what makes socie . . . .
    Hernandez: I get disrespected more than I probably
    should. But that’s nor [sic] here nor there.
    Townsend: To talk to you about this, [Hernandez], I’d
    like for you to know that you understand this and to agree
    to talk to me. Is that something you can do?
    Hernandez: I can try.
    Townsend: Ok, would you be willing to sign here?
    Hernandez: I guess. Well, what do I sign, my name?
    You [inaudible] my name.
    Townsend: Is this your name right here?
    Hernandez: [Inaudible] I was around in things that
    happened in the ’70s, supposedly. Everybody swears I
    wasn’t there. Do you know what I mean? I’ve got cousins
    upon cousins telling me, “You couldn’t have been there.”
    You know what I’m saying? “That didn’t happen.” Well,
    I know that happened. I was there. I was there when this
    happening [sic] in Grandma’s front yard. I was there
    when Grandpa kept bringing all this fucking [inaudible].
    Hernandez: [Pointing at the rights advisory form and
    stating,] I just want to know if this is my name or not.
    Townsend: Well, I believe that’s what your name to
    be. I mean you’ve got a tattoo there on your forearm that
    says “Desi.”
    Hernandez: That’s why I’m slowly putting all this shit
    on my body.
    Hernandez then complained that he was shocked with a Taser
    and began discussing other topics like his family and child-
    hood. He then said, “You guys probably don’t even know
    where this is coming from. I’m just fed the fuck up. I’m fed
    up with lies.”
    - 906 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    At many times during the interview, Hernandez would
    change the topic or talk about things that were not responsive
    to the question he was asked. He spoke multiple times at length
    about his family, wondering whether various family members
    were actually his family members.
    Hernandez also made multiple odd or nonsensical state-
    ments, such as statements about people having two stomachs
    like cows and about defecating being similar to having a child.
    Townsend then told Hernandez that Hernandez’ perspective
    of what happened mattered. Hernandez interjected, “Yeah, I’m
    catching everything you are saying.”
    Townsend asked Hernandez why he shot Debella, and
    Hernandez denied shooting him. Townsend told Hernandez
    that other people had told him that Hernandez shot Debella.
    Hernandez said, “Well as far as things go, anything I say can
    incriminate me and put me in prison.”
    Townsend told Hernandez that Hall told him what had hap-
    pened. Hernandez then claimed he was in the basement “smok-
    ing dope” with Debella and went upstairs to ask Hall and
    McPherson if they wanted to smoke dope. Hernandez did not
    want to wait on Hall, so he left. Hernandez claimed he did not
    hear any gunshot.
    Townsend told Hernandez that what makes people inter-
    ested in a case is “the why” behind what happened and that
    people want to know what Debella did to offend Hernandez.
    Hernandez said, “What did he do to offend me? Well, there’s
    a number of things.” Townsend asked him if he was upset that
    Debella was not cutting him in on his profits. Hernandez said,
    “It’s not about the profits, it’s about respect.” Later in the inter-
    view, Hernandez said, “Never once. [Debella’s] never showed
    me respect from the very first time I ever met him.” Townsend
    asked, “Is that why you got upset and shot him?” Hernandez
    said, “No, no, no. And I didn’t shoot him. Thanks for that addi-
    tion, though.”
    At some time during the interview, Hernandez said, “I
    think I’ll probably stop talking now.” Townsend said, “What’s
    that?” Hernandez repeated, “I think I’ll probably stop talking
    - 907 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    now.” Townsend said “ok,” paused, and then started talking
    about the importance of getting Hernandez’ side of the story.
    Townsend then told Hernandez that he is a unique person.
    Hernandez replied:
    And I’m very intelligent. I know what I’m doing. All
    this shit right here. [Circling the rights advisory form in
    pen and stating,] I don’t run around trying to do all this
    shit because I think I’m a badass or a hardass or I can
    prove something. I do all this because I know all this shit
    that happens [pointing at rights advisory form with a pen
    in hand] in the court of law. All this shit happens for a
    reason, which is good. And some of it I love too much,
    you know what I’m saying, as far as reading people’s
    cases, this and that, and the other. I can go and tell you
    where the judge, the prosecutor, and your lawyer fucked
    you. . . . I can tell you who can be judges and who can be
    lawyers and who can be prosecutors.
    Townsend also asked Hernandez about the gun. Hernandez
    said, “That was [Debella’s] revolver. That revolver don’t belong
    to me.” Townsend asked Hernandez how, if the gun belonged
    to Debella, Hernandez ended up using it. He replied, “Let’s just
    say because [Debella’s] careless.”
    Townsend again talked about the importance of honesty and
    asked Hernandez whether his story was going to change once
    DNA testing results were received. Townsend stressed that no
    matter what Hernandez had done, he could still have his integ-
    rity and honesty and not be a liar. Hernandez said, “A liar is a
    liar because they lie to themselves.”
    Townsend asked Hernandez if he was lying to himself about
    shooting Debella. Hernandez said no. Townsend asked, “Did
    you shoot [Debella]?” Hernandez then confessed, “Did I shoot
    [Debella]? Yes, I did.” He told Townsend that he left the gun
    “right there.” When pressed more about his motive, Hernandez
    said, “He was stepping on my toes, we can say.”
    Townsend asked Hernandez if he was sorry about what
    happened. Hernandez replied, “Of course I am.” He started
    talking about how he was raised and then said, “But as far as
    - 908 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    [Debella] goes, if I could take everything back, that’s what I’d
    love to do.”
    Near the end of the interview, Hernandez asked, “Who told
    you I shot [Debella]?” Townsend said, “You just told me that
    you shot [Debella].” Hernandez said, “Of course I did. But
    I also told many a people that Bill Clinton was my daddy.
    Or I shot John F. Kennedy too. Can you guys believe that?
    Would you believe that? No.” Similarly, several minutes later,
    Hernandez said, “You’re so convinced I shot him. . . . Who
    told you that I shot him?” Townsend said, “You just did.”
    Hernandez said, “I also told you that I shot John F. Kennedy.
    Can you prove that?”
    At the end of the interview, Hernandez put his face in his
    hands, and as Townsend was starting to ask another question,
    Hernandez said, “Boss, I think we should end this interview
    right now. If we could please. I’d much rather talk later.” The
    investigators ended the interview, which lasted approximately
    2 hours.
    6. Motion to Suppress
    Prior to trial, Hernandez moved to suppress the statements
    made in the August 6, 2015, interview on the basis that
    they were involuntary or taken in violation of his Miranda 4
    rights. At a hearing to determine the statements’ admissibility,
    Hernandez argued that his statements were not voluntary and
    that he could not waive his Miranda rights “due to his mental
    state and the influence of illegal narcotics in his system.”
    At the hearing, the video of the interview was introduced
    and the court heard testimony from Townsend and the Falls
    City Police Department’s chief of police.
    Townsend testified that prior to Hernandez’ interview, inves-
    tigators had spoken with Seager and Gates. Gates told investi-
    gators that Hernandez appeared to be “high” when he arrived
    at her house the day before the interview.
    4
    Miranda v. Arizona, 
    384 U.S. 436
    , 
    86 S. Ct. 1602
    , 
    16 L. Ed. 2d 694
          (1966).
    - 909 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    Townsend testified that a baggie of what appeared to con-
    tain methamphetamine was found on the passenger side of
    Seager’s truck, where Hernandez had been sitting. But no
    evidence of methamphetamine or other drug use was found in
    Gates’ residence where Hernandez was apprehended.
    Townsend explained that his technique for interviews is to
    initially build rapport. He said that neither he nor Frederick
    yelled or raised their voices during the interview. The tem-
    perature and lighting in the interview room were normal. The
    interview lasted around 2 hours, without any breaks. Townsend
    said that Hernandez did not appear overly tired and was
    “very focused.”
    Townsend testified that Hernandez did not demonstrate any
    behaviors associated with methamphetamine use at the time
    of the interview. Although Townsend did not know when
    Hernandez had last used methamphetamine or any other drugs,
    Hernandez had been in custody for approximately 12 hours,
    so Townsend assumed he had not had any during that time.
    Townsend thought Hernandez’ “odd” statements were the result
    of his personality or a “show or display.”
    The district court overruled Hernandez’ motion to sup-
    press. In its findings of fact, the court noted that the interview
    began approximately 111⁄2 hours after Hernandez was arrested.
    The court said that Hernandez “was articulate at times” and
    “appeared coherent throughout the interview.” The court said
    that Hernandez’ lack of focus “was not because Hernandez was
    delusional or under some type of drug but because he . . . [h]ad
    emotional difficulty trying to admit his actions involving his
    cousin [Debella] and . . . was aware of the legal consequences
    of his admission.”
    The court concluded that Hernandez’ statements were not
    involuntarily made and that his Miranda waiver was also vol-
    untary. It further found that his statement midway through the
    interview was not a clear, unequivocal, unambiguous invoca-
    tion of the right to remain silent.
    - 910 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    7. Motion in Limine
    Hernandez also filed a motion in limine to exclude certain
    statements made during the interview. The motion requested
    that the court exclude various statements, primarily about his
    past behavior and his family, on the basis of Neb. Evid. R. 401
    to 403.5
    The district court overruled Hernandez’ motion in limine
    in part and in part sustained it. The court excluded state-
    ments by Hernandez about being in prison, about “screwing
    [a] bitch,” and about a prior assault conviction for slitting an
    individual’s throat. The court also found that “while there are
    many statements made by [Hernandez] during [the] interview
    that seem irrelevant[,] any unfair prejudice (403) is outweighed
    by [the] necessity for [the] fact finder to consider context
    within [the] interview and [Hernandez’] voluntariness of his
    ultimate confession.”
    8. Closing A rguments
    At the conclusion of the State’s closing arguments, Hernandez
    moved for a mistrial based upon several statements made by
    the prosecuting attorney. These statements are set forth in
    greater detail in our discussion of Hernandez’ assignment of
    error on this topic. The district court overruled Hernandez’
    motion for mistrial, finding that if any of the statements were
    improper, they were harmless.
    9. Jury Verdicts and Sentences
    The court instructed the jury on determining the voluntari-
    ness of the statements made by Hernandez in his interview
    with the investigators. The instruction required the jury to find
    that he understood what he was saying and made the state-
    ments freely and voluntarily under all of the circumstances. If
    the jury did not find that this was established by proof beyond
    a reasonable doubt, it was instructed to disregard the state-
    ments even if it believed them to be true.
    5
    See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 27-401 to 27-403 (Reissue 2016).
    - 911 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    The jury found Hernandez guilty on all three counts. He
    was sentenced to life imprisonment for the first degree murder
    conviction and 3 to 7 and 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment on the
    other two convictions, all to run consecutively.
    III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
    Hernandez assigns, combined and restated, that the district
    court erred in (1) admitting the video of his interview with
    law enforcement officials, (2) not redacting various statements
    made in the interview pursuant to evidence rules 401 to 403,
    and (3) overruling his motion for mistrial based on statements
    made by the prosecution in closing arguments.
    IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
    [1] Whether a defendant voluntarily made a statement
    while in custody and whether a defendant unambiguously
    invoked his or her right to remain silent or to have counsel
    present are mixed questions of law and fact. We review a trial
    court’s finding of historical facts for clear error and inde-
    pendently determine whether those facts satisfy the constitu-
    tional standards.6
    [2] A trial court has the discretion to determine the relevancy
    and admissibility of evidence, and such determinations will
    not be disturbed on appeal unless they constitute an abuse of
    that discretion.7
    [3,4] Whether to grant a motion for mistrial is within the
    trial court’s discretion, and this court will not disturb its ruling
    unless the court abused its discretion.8 A mistrial is properly
    granted in a criminal case where an event occurs during the
    course of a trial which is of such a nature that its damaging
    effect cannot be removed by proper admonition or instruction
    to the jury and thus prevents a fair trial.9
    6
    State v. Burries, 
    297 Neb. 367
    , 
    900 N.W.2d 483
    (2017).
    7
    State v. Rocha, 
    295 Neb. 716
    , 
    890 N.W.2d 178
    (2017).
    8
    Id.
    9
    
    Id. - 912
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    V. ANALYSIS
    Before delving into the assignments of error, we note that it
    is not entirely clear from Hernandez’ brief whether his consti-
    tutional arguments are grounded solely in the U.S. Constitution
    or also in the Nebraska Constitution. Because Hernandez has
    not argued to the contrary, we will adhere to our practice of
    construing the provisions of the bill of rights in article I of the
    Nebraska Constitution in lockstep with the U.S. Supreme Court’s
    construction of parallel provisions in the U.S. Constitution.10
    1. A dmission of Video Interview
    We first consider Hernandez’ assignment that the district
    court erred in overruling his motion to suppress and admit-
    ting the video of his interview with law enforcement officials.
    Hernandez argues that the video should have been excluded
    because the statements in the video were obtained involun-
    tarily in violation of the Fifth Amendment prohibition of com-
    pelled self-incrimination, Hernandez did not validly waive his
    Miranda rights, and Hernandez invoked his right to remain
    silent during the interview.
    (a) Voluntariness of Confession
    [5] The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution—appli-
    cable to state governments by incorporation through the 14th
    Amendment—protects against compelled self-incrimination by
    providing that “[n]o person shall be . . . compelled in any
    criminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .”11 This con-
    stitutional provision, along with the Due Process Clause of the
    14th Amendment, prevents the use of involuntary confessions
    in criminal prosecutions.12 Likewise, the Nebraska Constitution
    10
    See, State v. Baker, 
    298 Neb. 216
    , 
    903 N.W.2d 469
    (2017); State v. Rocha,
    supra note 7; State v. Dubray, 
    289 Neb. 208
    , 
    854 N.W.2d 584
    (2014).
    11
    U.S. Const. amend. V; Malloy v. Hogan, 
    378 U.S. 1
    , 
    84 S. Ct. 1489
    , 12 L.
    Ed. 2d 653 (1964).
    12
    Dickerson v. United States, 
    530 U.S. 428
    , 
    120 S. Ct. 2326
    , 
    147 L. Ed. 2d 405
    (2000); Jackson v. Denno, 
    378 U.S. 368
    , 
    84 S. Ct. 1774
    , 
    12 L. Ed. 2d 908
    (1964); State v. Turner, 
    288 Neb. 249
    , 
    847 N.W.2d 69
    (2014).
    - 913 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    bars the use of involuntary confessions.13 These constitutional
    protections are rooted not only in the risk of false confessions
    flowing from the use of coercion, but also in the right of citi-
    zens to be free from oppressive overreaching at the hands of
    government officials.14
    [6] To overcome a motion to suppress, the prosecution has
    the burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that
    incriminating statements by the accused were voluntarily given
    and not the product of coercion.15
    [7] In determining whether an accused’s statement was given
    freely and voluntarily, courts examine police conduct in light
    of the totality of the circumstances, including the tactics used
    by the police and the details of the interrogation.16 Importantly
    for Hernandez’ argument, relevant factors include any charac-
    teristics of the accused known to police, which might cause his
    or her will to be easily overborne, such as a defendant’s mental
    state or intoxication.17
    Hernandez argues that the statements made in the video inter-
    view were not voluntary for purposes of the Fifth Amendment,
    because they were made while he was under the influence of
    methamphetamine. We disagree.
    While intoxication is relevant to determining whether police
    conduct amounted to coercion, “[i]ntoxication does ‘not auto-
    matically render a confession involuntary . . . .’”18
    [8] We have repeatedly said that coercive police activity
    is a necessary predicate to a finding that a confession is not
    13
    Neb. Const. art. I, §§ 3 and 12.
    14
    See, Colorado v. Connelly, 
    479 U.S. 157
    , 
    107 S. Ct. 515
    , 
    93 L. Ed. 2d 473
          (1986); Jackson v. Denno, supra note 12.
    15
    State v. McClain, 
    285 Neb. 537
    , 
    827 N.W.2d 814
    (2013).
    16
    See State v. Bormann, 
    279 Neb. 320
    , 
    777 N.W.2d 829
    (2010).
    17
    See, State v. Melton, 
    239 Neb. 790
    , 
    478 N.W.2d 341
    (1992); State v. Lamb,
    
    213 Neb. 498
    , 
    330 N.W.2d 462
    (1983).
    
    18 U.S. v
    . Jones, 
    842 F.3d 1077
    , 1083 (8th Cir. 2016).
    - 914 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    voluntary.19 The prohibition on the use of involuntary confes-
    sions is at its core—like other constitutional rights—a limita-
    tion on the power of government.20 Thus, the focus of this
    inquiry is on the conduct of governmental actors.21
    This principle is demonstrated in the U.S. Supreme Court
    case Colorado v. Connelly,22 in which the defendant approached
    a police officer on the street and made an unprompted confes-
    sion that he had murdered someone and wanted to talk about
    it. The confession was suppressed by a Colorado trial court,
    and the suppression was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme
    Court, based on evidence that the defendant suffered from
    schizophrenia and was in a psychotic state at the time of the
    confession.23 The defendant heard what he believed to be the
    “‘voice of God’” telling him to confess to the murder or com-
    mit suicide.24 The Colorado courts concluded that the confes-
    sion was involuntary, because it was not “‘the product of a
    rational intellect and a free will.’”25
    The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the decision of the
    Colorado Supreme Court, concluding that the confession was
    voluntary for purposes of the Due Process Clause.26 The Court
    said that its voluntariness cases have all “focused upon the
    19
    See State v. Grant, 
    293 Neb. 163
    , 
    876 N.W.2d 639
    (2016). See, also, State
    v. Dubray, supra note 10; State v. McClain, supra note 15; State v. Landis,
    
    281 Neb. 139
    , 
    794 N.W.2d 151
    (2011); State v. Goodwin, 
    278 Neb. 945
    ,
    
    774 N.W.2d 733
    (2009).
    20
    See, generally, NCAA v. Tarkanian, 
    488 U.S. 179
    , 
    109 S. Ct. 454
    , 102 L.
    Ed. 2d 469 (1988) (state action doctrine); Colorado v. Connelly, supra note
    14 (coercion and state action); State v. Dubray, supra note 10 (confession
    to private citizens).
    21
    Colorado v. Connelly, supra note 14. See, also, State v. Dubray, supra
    note 10.
    22
    Colorado v. Connelly, supra note 14.
    23
    
    Id. 24 Id.,
    479 U.S. at 161.
    25
    
    Id., 479 U.S.
    at 162.
    26
    Colorado v. Connelly, supra note 14.
    - 915 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    crucial element of police overreaching” and each contained “a
    substantial element of coercive police conduct.”27 The Court
    contrasted the facts in Connelly to the facts of a prior case28 in
    which a confession was deemed involuntary where the police
    knew of a defendant’s history of mental illness and exploited it
    with coercive tactics such as an 8- to 9-hour interrogation in a
    tiny room in isolation from family, friends, or legal counsel.29
    The Court reversed, because it concluded that the Colorado
    Supreme Court’s approach “fail[ed] to recognize the essential
    link between coercive activity of the State, on the one hand,
    and a resulting confession by a defendant, on the other.”30
    Again, the primary basis of Hernandez’ argument is that
    he was under the influence of methamphetamine. He points
    to the fact that, as the investigators knew, he had used meth-
    amphetamine the day before the interview. He also points to
    the many odd statements made during the interview. He also
    raises the question of whether he had adequate sleep prior to
    the interview.
    Applying the voluntariness factors set forth above, a review
    of the video interview reveals no overreaching or coercive
    conduct by law enforcement.
    The demeanor of each investigator was calm and relaxed.
    Throughout the interview, Townsend focused on building rap-
    port with Hernandez and appealing to his better instincts, such
    as a belief in the importance of telling the truth. The investi-
    gators never raised their voices, took an aggressive demeanor,
    or unfairly manipulated or lied to Hernandez. Hernandez was
    also allowed to speak at length without interruption on a vari-
    ety of topics well afield of the scope of the interview, with
    eventual gentle redirection.
    27
    
    Id., 479 U.S.
    at 163, 164.
    28
    Blackburn v. Alabama, 
    361 U.S. 199
    , 
    80 S. Ct. 274
    , 
    4 L. Ed. 2d 242
          (1960).
    29
    Colorado v. Connelly, supra note 14.
    30
    
    Id., 479 U.S.
    at 165.
    - 916 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    The interview was only about 2 hours long, and there was
    nothing unusual or oppressive about the environment in which
    it was conducted. There is no evidence in the record that
    Hernandez was ever kept from sleeping, and Townsend testi-
    fied that Hernandez appeared reasonably well rested.
    Hernandez undoubtedly made numerous strange statements
    in the interview. It is possible he felt some effect from the
    residual methamphetamine in his body from smoking the day
    before, was not in a state of full mental health, or both. But
    such facts are not dispositive. As we have explained, intoxi-
    cation and mental illness alone are insufficient to render a
    confession involuntary.31 The record belies any notion that the
    investigators exploited Hernandez’ mental state in order to
    overbear his will and wring out a confession. To the contrary,
    Hernandez was certainly coherent and able to intelligently
    answer questions with specificity and in a reasonably articulate
    manner when he chose to do so. The questioning was entirely
    appropriate for someone in Hernandez’ state.
    Moreover, some of Hernandez’ statements indicate that sev-
    eral of his strange comments may have been strategic, rather
    than the product of drugs or his mental condition. When con-
    fronted with the fact that he said he shot Debella, he said, “Of
    course I did. But I also told many a people that Bill Clinton
    was my daddy. Or I shot John F. Kennedy too. Can you guys
    believe that? Would you believe that? No.” He made a simi-
    lar comment after another reminder of his previous confes-
    sion: “I also told you that I shot John F. Kennedy. Can you
    prove that?”
    These statements show that, at least sometimes, Hernandez
    made absurd statements in an effort to undermine the cred-
    ibility of his incriminating statements. It is thus doubtful
    whether all of his off-the-wall comments were truly the result
    of intoxication or an unsound mental state.
    31
    See, Colorado v. Connelly, supra note 14; U.S. v. Jones, supra note 18.
    See, also, State v. Goodwin, supra note 19.
    - 917 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    Additionally, Hernandez’ ability to think clearly was illus-
    trated by the fact that he began the interview by asking the
    Nebraska investigators why they were questioning him in
    Kansas. Questioning the territorial scope of law enforcement
    jurisdiction reveals a reasonably cogent mind.
    Because we find no evidence of coercion on the part of law
    enforcement officials, we conclude that Hernandez’ statements
    were made voluntarily. The district court did not err in over-
    ruling Hernandez’ motion to suppress or his trial objections
    regarding the admission of the video interview.
    (b) Waiver of Miranda Rights
    Hernandez also argues that the district court erred in admit-
    ting the video interview, because he did not voluntarily waive
    his Miranda rights to remain silent and to counsel.
    In Miranda v. Arizona,32 the U.S. Supreme Court announced
    the rule that confessions obtained in custodial interrogations
    may not be used in criminal prosecutions unless certain pro-
    cedural safeguards were met, including advising the detainee
    of his or her constitutional right to remain silent and right
    to counsel.33 These rights must be knowingly and volun-
    tarily waived.34
    Although the Miranda rule and the requirement that con-
    fessions be made voluntarily both arise out of the Fifth
    Amendment, the question of whether a custodial interroga-
    tion complies with Miranda is distinct from the question
    of whether statements made during a custodial interrogation
    were sufficiently voluntary.35 The Miranda warnings are an
    “absolute prerequisite” to custodial interrogation; statements
    made during a custodial interrogation in the absence of these
    32
    Miranda v. Arizona, supra note 4.
    33
    
    Id. 34 Moran
    v. Burbine, 
    475 U.S. 412
    , 
    106 S. Ct. 1135
    , 
    89 L. Ed. 2d 410
    (1986);
    Miranda v. Arizona, supra note 4; State v. Goodwin, supra note 19.
    35
    See, Miranda v. Arizona, supra note 4; State v. Rogers, 
    277 Neb. 37
    , 
    760 N.W.2d 35
    (2009); State v. Ball, 
    271 Neb. 140
    , 
    710 N.W.2d 592
    (2006).
    - 918 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    warnings and a valid Miranda waiver are inadmissible, even if
    otherwise voluntarily made.36
    [9] To be a valid waiver of Miranda rights, the waiver must
    be “‘knowing’ and ‘voluntary.’”37 A waiver is “knowing” if
    it is “made with a full awareness of both the nature of the
    right being abandoned and the consequences of the decision
    to abandon it.”38 A waiver is “voluntary” if it is “the product
    of a free and deliberate choice rather than [through] intimida-
    tion, coercion, or deception.”39 The standard for determining
    voluntariness in the context of a Miranda waiver is the same
    standard used to determine the voluntariness of confessions,
    which we have discussed in detail above.40 Whether a knowing
    and voluntary waiver has been made is determined by looking
    to the totality of the circumstances.41
    The parties do not dispute that Hernandez was given a
    Miranda rights advisory. The issue is whether Hernandez
    knowingly and voluntarily waived his Miranda rights. After a
    review of the evidence, we find that he did.
    First, several of Hernandez’ statements show that he under-
    stood his rights. One comment is of unique importance. At
    one point in the interview, Hernandez said, “[A]nything I say
    can incriminate me and put me in prison.” This statement is
    strong evidence of his understanding of his rights. Additionally,
    Hernandez’ clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to
    remain silent at the end of the interview indicates that he
    understood that right as well.
    Hernandez also boasted of his understanding of the legal
    system, saying, “I know all this shit that happens in the court
    36
    Miranda v. Arizona, supra note 
    4, 384 U.S. at 468
    .
    37
    Moran v. Burbine, supra note 
    34, 475 U.S. at 419
    . Accord State v.
    Goodwin, supra note 19.
    38
    Moran v. Burbine, supra note 
    34, 475 U.S. at 421
    .
    39
    
    Id. 40 See
    Colorado v. Connelly, supra note 14.
    41
    State v. Burries, supra note 6.
    - 919 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    of law.” He spoke about how he liked to read other people’s
    cases and understood how they were disadvantaged by the
    legal system.
    Testimony was presented at the suppression hearing that
    Hernandez was questioned in connection with a prior assault
    conviction, and at that time, he signed a rights advisory form
    and seemed to understand his rights.
    Hernandez also expressly indicated that he understood his
    rights. When Townsend asked him if he understood, Hernandez
    said “Yeah, I’m still focusing on the shooting.” After Hernandez
    gave this response, Townsend asked him, “Do you want me to
    explain or to repeat any of that?” Hernandez shook his head
    “no,” indicating that he understood his rights.
    [10,11] Not only did Hernandez understand his rights, but
    he voluntarily waived them. An express waiver of a suspect’s
    Miranda rights is not required to be made in writing; an oral
    waiver is sufficient.42 In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court has
    said that a Miranda waiver need not be express, but can be
    implied.43 A “defendant’s silence, coupled with an understand-
    ing of his rights and a course of conduct indicating waiver,” may
    establish a valid, implied waiver.44 Thus, “[w]here the prosecu-
    tion shows that a Miranda warning was given and that it was
    understood by the accused, an accused’s uncoerced statement
    establishes an implied waiver of the right to remain silent.”45
    As discussed, the evidence shows that Hernandez understood
    these rights. Thus, by voluntarily speaking with the investiga-
    tors, Hernandez impliedly waived his rights.46
    
    42 U.S. v
    . Sturdivant, 
    796 F.3d 690
    (7th Cir. 2015); U.S. v. Murdock, 
    491 F.3d 694
    (7th Cir. 2007). See, also, North Carolina v. Butler, 
    441 U.S. 369
    , 
    99 S. Ct. 1755
    , 
    60 L. Ed. 2d 286
    (1979).
    43
    Berghuis v. Thompkins, 
    560 U.S. 370
    , 
    130 S. Ct. 2250
    , 
    176 L. Ed. 2d 1098
          (2010).
    44
    North Carolina v. Butler, supra note 
    42, 441 U.S. at 373
    .
    45
    Berghuis v. Thompkins, supra note 
    43, 560 U.S. at 384
    .
    46
    See, Berghuis v. Thompkins, supra note 43; North Carolina v. Butler, supra
    note 42.
    - 920 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    Not only did Hernandez’ conduct constitute an implied
    waiver, but he also validly provided an express oral waiver.
    When Townsend asked Hernandez if he would be willing to
    speak with him, Hernandez said, “I can try.” When asked to
    sign the rights advisory form to express this waiver in writ-
    ing, he said, “I guess,” and leaned forward to sign before get-
    ting sidetracked and moving on to another topic. Hernandez’
    statements and conduct constitute an express waiver of his
    Miranda rights.
    (c) Invocation of Right
    to Remain Silent
    Hernandez also argues that the video interview should have
    been excluded, because he invoked his right to remain silent
    when he said, “I think I’ll probably stop talking now.” We
    disagree. An invocation of the right to remain silent or right to
    counsel must be clear, unambiguous, and unequivocal.47
    [12] Here, to “think” about “probably” being silent is
    ambiguous and equivocal. In State v. Rogers,48 we discussed
    how statements prefaced by equivocal words like “I think,”
    “maybe,” or “I believe” generally do not constitute a clear,
    unambiguous, and unequivocal invocation.
    Hernandez’ equivocal statement about how he thought he
    would “probably stop talking” stands in stark contrast to his
    unequivocal invocation of his right to remain silent at the end
    of the interview, which was scrupulously honored. Hernandez
    said, “Boss, I think we should end this interview right now. If
    we could please. I’d much rather talk later.” When he wanted
    to exercise his right to remain silent, rather than merely
    musing about probably stopping talking, Hernandez was very
    capable of requesting that the interviewers “end this interview
    right now.”
    47
    See, Berghuis v. Thompkins, supra note 43; Davis v. United States, 
    512 U.S. 452
    , 
    114 S. Ct. 2350
    , 
    129 L. Ed. 2d 362
    (1994); State v. Rogers,
    supra note 35.
    48
    State v. Rogers, supra note 35.
    - 921 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    We conclude that Hernandez’ statement, “I think I’ll prob-
    ably stop talking now,” was not a clear, unambiguous, and
    unequivocal of his right to remain silent and terminate the
    custodial interrogation.
    Because Hernandez validly waived his Miranda rights, vol-
    untarily spoke with the investigators, and did not subsequently
    invoke his right to remain silent until the end of the inter-
    view, we conclude that the district court did not err in deny-
    ing Hernandez’ motion to suppress and trial objections to the
    video interview.
    2. R elevance and Rule 403
    Hernandez also argues that the district court erred in over-
    ruling in part his motion in limine and trial objections and
    admitting various statements in Hernandez’ interview with
    the investigators. He argues first that these statements were
    not relevant and, secondly, that even if relevant, the state-
    ments should have been excluded under rule 403. We conclude
    that the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding
    the statements were relevant. Nor did it abuse its discretion
    in finding that the statements were not inadmissible under
    rule 403.
    (a) Relevance
    [13] Evidence which is not relevant is inadmissible.49 To be
    relevant, evidence must be probative and material.50 Evidence
    is probative if it has any tendency to make the existence of a
    fact more or less probable than it would be without the evi-
    dence.51 A fact is material if it is of consequence to the deter-
    mination of the case.52
    The district court determined that Hernandez’ statements
    were relevant to show the voluntariness of his confession in
    49
    § 27-402.
    50
    State v. Rocha, supra note 7.
    51
    
    Id. 52 Id.
                                           - 922 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    his interview with law enforcement. We find that this was not
    an abuse of discretion.
    At the suppression hearing, the State was required to prove
    that Hernandez’ confession was voluntary by a preponderance
    of the evidence. At trial, in order to rely on the confession,
    the jury was required to find voluntariness beyond a reason-
    able doubt. Thus, evidence probative of the voluntariness of
    Hernandez’ statements in the interview is relevant and the
    statements made by Hernandez in the interview are undoubt-
    edly relevant to the voluntariness of Hernandez’ confessions in
    the interview. Accordingly, the district court did not abuse its
    discretion in determining that the statements Hernandez sought
    to exclude were relevant.
    (b) Rule 403
    Even relevant evidence is not automatically admissible.53 It
    must pass muster under rule 403.54 Under rule 403, the proba-
    tive value of the evidence must not be substantially outweighed
    by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or
    misleading the jury.55
    [14,15] Rule 403 considers the danger of unfair prejudice.
    Most, if not all, evidence offered by a party is calculated to
    be prejudicial to the opposing party.56 In the context of rule
    403, unfair prejudice means an undue tendency to suggest a
    decision based on an improper basis.57 Unfair prejudice speaks
    to the capacity of some concededly relevant evidence to lure
    the fact finder into declaring guilt on a ground different from
    proof specific to the offense charged, commonly on an emo-
    tional basis.58 When considering whether evidence of other
    53
    
    Id. 54 Id.;
    § 27-403.
    55
    State v. Rocha, supra note 7.
    56
    State v. Oldson, 
    293 Neb. 718
    , 
    884 N.W.2d 10
    (2016).
    57
    
    Id. See, also,
    State v. Baker, supra note 10; State v. Rocha, supra note 7.
    58
    State v. Oldson, supra note 56.
    - 923 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    acts is unfairly prejudicial, we consider whether the evidence
    tends to make conviction of the defendant more probable for
    an incorrect reason.59
    When trial courts admit recorded conversations or inter-
    views, it does not follow that they must be in an unredacted
    form.60 Hernandez rightly points out that “[c]onfessions are not
    an all-or-nothing proposition.”61
    We first note that the district court did sustain Hernandez’
    motion in limine in part and excluded discussion of an incident
    where he slit a person’s throat, a reference to being in prison,
    and a comment about “screwing [a] bitch.” These statements,
    especially the lengthy discussion about his prior assault, cer-
    tainly bear a significant risk of unfair prejudice.
    But the statements that the district court admitted and that
    Hernandez challenges do not bear the same risk of unfair
    prejudice. The bulk of the statements challenged by Hernandez
    pertain to his family. His brief refers to the “perceived
    abuse inflicted upon Hernandez by his parents.”62 His state-
    ments show a negative perception of many family members.
    Additionally, his wondering whether various family members
    are truly his family members is a recurring theme.
    Hernandez’ statements about his family do not bear a sig-
    nificant risk of unfair prejudice. The fact that Hernandez does
    not have a healthy relationship with or a positive view of
    some members of his family, or that he has suffered abuse,
    is unlikely to make the jury more likely to convict him on
    that improper basis. This is not to say that there is no risk
    of unfair prejudice from these statements, just that it is not
    substantial.
    Hernandez’ statements about his family also have some
    probative value on the issue of voluntariness. As discussed
    59
    
    Id. 60 See
    State v. Rocha, supra note 7.
    61
    Brief for appellant at 39.
    62
    
    Id. - 924
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    above, the voluntariness of a statement is considered in light
    of the totality of the circumstances, including the suspect’s
    mental state or intoxication.63 Hernandez wondered at vari-
    ous times whether certain family members were who he was
    told they were. These comments, which could be character-
    ized as paranoia, have some probative value with respect to
    Hernandez’ mental state or intoxication, and thus with respect
    to the issue of voluntariness.
    Hernandez also sought to exclude statements in which he
    referenced “gang-banging” in his past and not believing in
    God. While these types of statements generally can carry a risk
    of unfair prejudice, they were in this case isolated statements in
    the context of a 2-hour interview. These comments were made
    briefly and were not repeated. This is not to say that there is no
    risk of unfair prejudice, but merely that the risk of prejudice is
    not nearly as grave as if the interview contained an extended
    conversation on these topics.
    In sum, Hernandez’ statements about his family have little
    risk of unfair prejudice but also only moderate probative value.
    His statements about “gang-banging” and not believing in God
    carry some risk of prejudice, but not significant given the iso-
    lated and brief nature of those comments. Whether the risk of
    unfair prejudice substantially outweighed the probative value
    of these statements is a question left to the discretion of the
    trial court.64 We conclude that the district court did not abuse
    its discretion by overruling in part Hernandez’ motion in limine
    and trial objections.
    3. Closing Statements
    Finally, we turn to Hernandez’ assignment that the district
    court erred in overruling his motion for mistrial on the basis
    that statements made by the prosecuting attorney in his closing
    arguments constitute prosecutorial misconduct.
    63
    See State v. Goodwin, supra note 19.
    64
    See State v. Baker, supra note 10.
    - 925 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    [16] When considering a claim of prosecutorial miscon-
    duct, we first consider whether the prosecutor’s acts consti-
    tute misconduct.65 We have acknowledged that “prosecutorial
    misconduct” cannot be neatly defined, but we have said that
    generally, it encompasses conduct that violates legal or ethi-
    cal standards for various contexts because the conduct will or
    may undermine a defendant’s right to a fair trial.66 We have
    also said that a prosecutor’s conduct that does not mislead and
    unduly influence the jury is not misconduct.67
    [17] If we conclude that a prosecutor’s acts were miscon-
    duct, we next consider whether the misconduct prejudiced
    the defendant’s right to a fair trial.68 Prosecutorial misconduct
    prejudices a defendant’s right to a fair trial when the miscon-
    duct so infects the trial that the resulting conviction violates
    due process.69
    Hernandez divides the statements into two categories of
    prosecutorial misconduct: statements of personal belief/­
    imprimatur of government and statements that inflame the
    prejudices or excite the passions of the jury against the
    accused. We consider each in turn.
    (a) Statements of Personal Belief/
    Imprimatur of Government
    [18,19] Prosecutors generally may not give their personal
    opinions on the veracity of a witness or the guilt or inno-
    cence of the accused.70 The principle behind this rule is that
    65
    See State v. Dubray, supra note 10.
    66
    
    Id. 67 Id.
    68
    
    Id. 69 Id.
    70
    See Neb. Ct. R. of Prof. Cond. § 3-503.4 (“[a] lawyer shall not . . . in trial,
    . . . state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the credibility
    of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or innocence of
    an accused”). See, also, State v. Gonzales, 
    294 Neb. 627
    , 
    884 N.W.2d 10
    2
    (2016).
    - 926 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    the prosecutor’s opinion carries with it the imprimatur of
    the government and may induce the jury to trust the govern-
    ment’s judgment rather than its own view of the evidence.71
    Stated differently, when a prosecutor asserts his or her per-
    sonal opinions, the jury might be persuaded by a perception
    that counsel’s opinions are correct because of his position
    as a prosecutor, rather than being persuaded by the evi-
    dence. Thus, when a prosecutor’s comments rest on reason-
    ably drawn inferences from the evidence, the prosecutor is
    permitted to present a spirited summation that a defense
    theory is illogical or unsupported by the evidence and to high-
    light the relative believability of witnesses for the State and
    the defense.72
    Hernandez argues that the prosecutor in this case made
    a number of statements improperly expressing his personal
    beliefs. These statements include:
    [1] The fact that he had a point to prove and that he then
    acted upon that point by shooting . . . Debella is among
    the numerous reasons the State of Nebraska believes that
    this crime is a premeditated first degree murder because
    it shows he thought about what he wanted to do and
    hoped to accomplish before he actually did it.
    ....
    [2] The State believes that when you consider all of
    the evidence, not just one piece, not just two, but you
    consider all the evidence in totality, the State believes
    that it has more than satisfied its burden to prove that
    this is, in fact, a first degree premeditated murder com-
    mitted by . . . Hernandez, and that he, likewise, used a
    firearm to commit a felony, that being the murder, and
    was a felon at the time he committed his offense and it
    was unlawful for him to possess that gun he used to kill
    . . . Debella.
    71
    United States v. Young, 
    470 U.S. 1
    , 
    105 S. Ct. 1038
    , 
    84 L. Ed. 2d 1
    (1985).
    72
    See State v. Gonzales, supra note 70.
    - 927 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    [3] Accordingly, the State of Nebraska is asking you,
    based upon the totality of the circumstances, evidence,
    testimony you’ve heard over these past four days, to
    return a guilty verdict against . . . Hernandez for each of
    these crimes.
    [4] Ladies and Gentlemen, to be perfectly honest with
    you, when looking and reflecting back on the testimony
    and evidence you’ve heard throughout the course of this
    case, I don’t know that there is sufficient words in the
    dictionary or adjectives in the thesaurus to describe the
    selflessness [sic], the senseless, the heartlessness, the dis-
    gusting acts committed not by just by . . . Hernandez but,
    also, by the likes of John Hall, Brett Winters, and Dave
    McPherson. It, honestly, made me sick and it makes me
    sick that the State had to present any of these witnesses
    before you in its case in chief in hopes that you’ll realize
    that this was only necessary because of the fact that . . .
    Debella was the victim of the ultimate injustice that one
    human can commit against another.
    ....
    [5] So the State believes that [the testimony of the fire-
    arms examiner] has helped us corroborate another thing
    that . . . Hernandez tells us in his statement and that is
    that he left that gun there.
    After reviewing these statements, we find that the first, sec-
    ond, third, and fifth statements do not constitute prosecutorial
    misconduct. Although each of these statements contains the
    phrases “the State believes” or “the State of Nebraska is ask-
    ing you,” merely using such phrases does not turn an otherwise
    proper summation of the evidence into an improper one.73
    In the first statement, the prosecutor was relying on
    Hernandez’ statement that he “had a point to prove” as evidence
    that the murder was premeditated. Although the prosecutor said
    73
    See State v. Green, 
    287 Neb. 212
    , 229, 
    842 N.W.2d 74
    , 91 (2014) (“[s]o,
    while the prosecutor might have referenced his personal beliefs, it appears
    that such were a deduction from the evidence”).
    - 928 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    “the State of Nebraska believes,” within that statement, the
    prosecutor was merely attempting to point to evidence support-
    ing a finding that the murder was premeditated.
    In the second statement, although the prosecutor again used
    the statement “the State believes,” the prosecutor was simply
    arguing that the jury should consider all the evidence and find
    that the State had met its burden. This is not improper.
    In the third statement, the prosecutor said that “the State
    of Nebraska is asking you, based upon the totality of the cir-
    cumstances, evidence, [and] testimony . . . to return a guilty
    verdict.” Again, the prosecutor is merely asking the jury to
    consider all the evidence and to return a guilty verdict, which
    is not improper.
    In the fifth statement, the prosecutor said that “the State
    believes that [the testimony of the firearms examiner] has
    helped us corroborate another thing that . . . Hernandez tells
    us in his statement and that is that he left that gun there.”
    Although the phrase “the State believes” is used, the prosecu-
    tor is simply arguing that certain evidence—the expert’s testi-
    mony—helped corroborate Hernandez’ statement.
    Although we find that these specific statements were not
    misconduct within their context in this particular case, there
    are many circumstances where “I” statements—“I think,”
    “I know,” “I believe,” “the State of Nebraska believes,” et
    cetera—could be considered as conveying a personal opinion
    and are thus misconduct.
    We have previously encouraged prosecutors to preface
    any questionable statements with the phrase “‘the evidence
    shows.’”74 We emphasize, once again, that prosecutors could
    easily avoid an appearance of impropriety by simply substitut-
    ing “I believe” or “the State believes” with the simple phrase
    “the evidence shows.”
    The fourth statement is another matter. It contains an
    improper personal opinion not based on any evidence. Within
    that statement, the prosecutor told the jury that it “honestly”
    74
    State v. Gonzales, supra note 
    70, 294 Neb. at 649
    , 884 N.W.2d at 119.
    - 929 -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    “made [him] sick” that the State had to present certain wit-
    nesses as part of its case in chief. Although we understand that
    the prosecutor was attempting to acknowledge the lack of cred-
    ibility in his witnesses, the manner in which he attempted to
    do so was highly improper. This statement was not a summa-
    tion of the evidence. The prosecutor was expressing a personal
    opinion not based on any evidence; this is clearly prosecutorial
    misconduct.
    The fourth statement also constitutes prosecutorial miscon-
    duct for other reasons, which shall be discussed below.
    (b) Statements That Inflame Prejudices
    or Excite Passions of Jurors
    [20] Prosecutors also may not inflame the jurors’ prejudices
    or excite their passions against the accused.75 Prosecutors
    should not make statements or elicit testimony intended to
    focus the jury’s attention on the qualities and personal attri-
    butes of the victim.76 These facts lack any relevance to the
    criminal prosecution and have the potential to evoke jurors’
    sympathy and outrage against the defendant.77
    Hernandez argues that the fourth statement, described above,
    was intended to inflame the prejudices of the jurors and to
    excite their passions. He makes the same argument regarding
    the following statements made by the prosecutor in his clos-
    ing arguments:
    [6] From every account you’ve heard these past four
    days, including that given by . . . Hernandez, . . .
    Debella’s sins were, at most, punishable by incarceration,
    not eternal rest in a coffin, particularly at the hands of a
    man whose primary complaint was that . . . Debella was
    stepping on his toes.
    ....
    75
    State v. Iromuanya, 
    282 Neb. 798
    , 
    806 N.W.2d 404
    (2011). See, also, State
    v. Dubray, supra note 10.
    76
    State v. Iromuanya, supra note 75.
    77
    
    Id. - 930
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    [7] We know that [Debella] fought hard for his life.
    We heard about how he was gasping for breath and trying
    to hang on. We know that he held on in the hospital for
    eight days afterwards with the assistance of machines. We
    heard from [his mother] about the heart-wrenching deci-
    sion she had to make in taking him off those machines . .
    . . She held on as long as she could.
    Hernandez also complains that the prosecutor referred to the
    other individuals living in the Brownell house as “vermin,”
    “riffraff,” and “lowlife people, so low that they would let a
    bleeding man lie on the floor.”
    We agree with Hernandez that all of these statements con-
    stitute prosecutorial misconduct. The prosecutor’s comment
    about “the selflessness [sic], the senseless, the heartlessness,
    the disgusting acts” committed by Hernandez and others was
    clearly improper. This type of a comment is an appeal to the
    emotions of the jurors, not an argument regarding any of the
    elements of the crimes charged. The prosecutor’s comments
    about Debella’s fighting for his life and Debella’s mother’s
    having to make the “heart-wrenching” decision to take him off
    life support, as well as the reference to Debella’s being pun-
    ished by “eternal rest in a coffin,” were all clearly intended to
    play on the jurors’ emotions by attempting to draw sympathy to
    Debella and his mother, which is entirely improper.78
    Referring to the individuals that lived in the Brownell house
    as “vermin,” “riffraff,” and “lowlife people” is improper. This
    type of name calling has no place in a criminal prosecution.
    While this language was not directed at Hernandez, it was
    used to describe those living in the Brownell house. This lan-
    guage certainly reflected on Hernandez by his association with
    those individuals.
    Because we find that the prosecutor’s statements consti-
    tuted prosecutorial misconduct, we must consider whether
    the misconduct prejudiced Hernandez’ right to a fair trial.
    78
    See 
    id. - 931
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    As we said in another prosecutorial misconduct case, “the
    prosecutor has dodged a reversal” in this case.79 Despite the
    fact that a number of the prosecutor’s statements constitute
    prosecutorial misconduct, the evidence against Hernandez is
    overwhelming and the misconduct did not prejudice his right
    to a fair trial.
    [21,22] Whether prosecutorial misconduct is prejudicial
    depends largely upon the context of the trial as a whole.80 In
    determining whether a prosecutor’s improper conduct preju-
    diced the defendant’s right to a fair trial, we consider the fol-
    lowing factors: (1) the degree to which the prosecutor’s con-
    duct or remarks tended to mislead or unduly influence the jury,
    (2) whether the conduct or remarks were extensive or isolated,
    (3) whether defense counsel invited the remarks, (4) whether
    the court provided a curative instruction, and (5) the strength
    of the evidence supporting the conviction.81
    While the prosecutor made several improper remarks in clos-
    ing arguments, and while a curative instruction from the court
    would have been warranted, we cannot say that Hernandez’
    right to a fair trial was prejudiced.
    Most importantly, the evidence against Hernandez was
    overwhelming. Hernandez confessed to shooting Debella to
    numerous relatives who testified at trial. Moreover, he con-
    fessed to law enforcement in a video interview that was
    played for the jury. He was seen shortly after the shooting
    by those in the upstairs of the house. There was no evidence
    that Debella’s death was the result of suicide, and there was
    little to no evidence of any alternative theory of Debella’s
    murder. The jury could also infer Hernandez’ guilt from the
    fact that he ran from police and resisted arrest. It would sim-
    ply stretch credulity to think that the jury found Hernandez
    guilty because of the prosecutor’s improper statements rather
    79
    State v. Dubray, supra note 
    10, 289 Neb. at 228
    , 854 N.W.2d at 605.
    80
    State v. Iromuanya, supra note 75.
    81
    See 
    id. - 932
    -
    Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
    299 Nebraska R eports
    STATE v. HERNANDEZ
    Cite as 
    299 Neb. 896
    than because of the overwhelming and undeniable evidence
    of his guilt.
    For these reasons, we conclude that Hernandez’ right to a
    fair trial was not prejudiced and the district court did not abuse
    its discretion in overruling Hernandez’ motion for mistrial.
    VI. CONCLUSION
    For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm.
    A ffirmed.
    Miller-Lerman, J., participating on briefs.
    Wright, J., not participating.
    Miller-Lerman, J., concurring.
    I concur. The prosecutor’s improper statements made in his
    closing remarks constituted serious prosecutorial misconduct.
    Were it not for the strength of the evidence supporting the con-
    victions, I would reverse.
    Cassel, J., joins in this concurrence.