State v. Hernandez

- 162 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Christian X.
Hernandez, appellant.
___ N.W.3d ___
Filed March 31, 2026. 	No. A-24-681.
1. Rules of Evidence. In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules
apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the Nebraska
Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only when the rules make
discretion a factor in determining admissibility.
2. Rules of Evidence: Appeal and Error. Where the Nebraska Evidence
Rules commit the evidentiary question at issue to the discretion of the
trial court, an appellate court reviews the admissibility of evidence for
an abuse of discretion.
3. Judgments: Words and Phrases. An abuse of discretion occurs when a
trial court’s decision is based upon reasons that are untenable or unrea-
sonable or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, reason,
and evidence.
4. Motions for Mistrial: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not
disturb a trial court’s decision whether to grant a motion for mistrial
unless the trial court has abused its discretion.
5. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In reviewing a criminal
conviction for sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the conviction,
the relevant question for an appellate court is whether, after viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any ratio-
nal trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime
beyond a reasonable doubt.
6. Sentences: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Absent an abuse of discre-
tion, an appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s rulings as to the
source and type of evidence and information that may be used in deter-
mining the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed.
7. Sentences: Appeal and Error. Absent an abuse of discretion by the trial
court, an appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within the
statutory limits.
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
10/18/2026 12:40 AM CDT

- 163 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
8. 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.
9. Motions for Mistrial: Juries: Appeal and Error. Where a motion
for mistrial is premised on adducing evidence that violates an order in
limine, an appellate court will consider that the trial judge was in the
best position to assess the potential impact of such evidence on the jury.
10. Sentences. A sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically
applied set of factors, but the appropriateness of the sentence is neces-
sarily a subjective judgment that includes the sentencing judge’s obser-
vations of the defendant’s demeanor and attitude and all the facts and
circumstances surrounding the defendant’s life.
11. ____. Where a defendant was under the age of 18 when he or she com-
mitted a Class IA felony, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02 (Reissue 2016)
dictates that the sentencing judge must also consider mitigating factors,
such as the defendant’s (1) age at the time of the offense, (2) impetuos-
ity, (3) family and community environment, and (4) ability to appreciate
risks and consequences of the conduct, as well as (5) the outcome of a
comprehensive mental health evaluation of the defendant conducted by
an adolescent mental health professional licensed in Nebraska.
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Jeffrey
J. Lux, Judge. Affirmed.
Thomas C. Riley, Douglas County Public Defender, and
Abbi R. Romshek for appellant.
Michael 	T. 	Hilgers, Attorney 	General, 	and 	Melissa 	R.
Vincent for appellee.
Riedmann, Chief Judge, and Pirtle and Freeman, Judges.
Riedmann, Chief Judge.
I. INTRODUCTION
This is Christian X. Hernandez’ direct appeal from his
convictions and sentencing in the district court for Douglas
County following a jury trial. Upon review, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.

- 164 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
II. BACKGROUND
Hernandez was charged with first degree murder, discharge
of a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle, and two counts of
use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Following a jury
trial, Hernandez was convicted of all charges. Numerous wit-
nesses, including multiple law enforcement officers and foren-
sic technicians, testified at trial. We recount only the evidence
that is necessary to resolve Hernandez’ assigned errors.
Hernandez and Jorge Campos had been in the same friend
group, but at some point, the group split into two separate
factions. Hernandez and Campos were no longer in the same
group. In August or September 2021, one of Campos’ friends
was in a fight with Hernandez at school, and a video of the
fight circulated on social media. Following this, there were
smaller incidents and arguments between the two groups, but
nothing very serious.
On December 22, 2021, Campos was driving and his
14-year-old stepsister, Isabella Santiago, was in the back seat.
His friend Maximilliano Lopez (Maximilliano) was in the
front passenger seat. Campos was driving Maximilliano home,
and around 9 p.m., Campos drove through Maximilliano’s
neighborhood. Campos was playing music loudly on his car’s
radio and was honking the car’s horn. Samuel Lopez (Samuel)
was driving in the same neighborhood. The passengers in
Samuel’s car included Hernandez in the back passenger seat
and Jose Perez-Carrisales in the front passenger seat.
Samuel saw Campos’ car drive by and someone in Samuel’s
car told him to “‘go, go, go.’” Samuel started following
Campos’ car. Hernandez passed Samuel a gun, and Samuel
passed the gun back to Hernandez, saying it was not for him.
Campos stopped at a stop sign, and Samuel pulled his car next
to Campos’ car. Ten shots were fired from Samuel’s car, and
Campos looked over and saw Hernandez in the other car.
Maximilliano saw Hernandez shooting. Samuel turned left,
and Campos drove straight ahead. Santiago had been shot,
so Campos drove to a nearby fire station to obtain medical

- 165 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
assistance. Santiago died as a result of a gunshot wound to her
back. A projectile was recovered from her body. Bullet defects
were observed on Campos’ car, and projectiles were recovered
from the inside of the car. Campos, Maximilliano, and Samuel
all identified Hernandez as the shooter.
Following the shooting, as part of their investigation, law
enforcement searched the home of Ivan Morelos-Pasillas,
who was an associate of Hernandez. Morelos-Pasillas was on
probation, and his residence could be searched by his juvenile
probation officer pursuant to his probationary status. A firearm
was recovered during the search, but it was later determined
not to be the firearm used in the shooting. The firearm was
received into evidence at trial. Police later located Samuel’s
car and collected DNA swabs from various parts of both
the interior and exterior of the car, but Hernandez was not
included as a contributor to any of the DNA tested.
The jury convicted Hernandez of all four counts, and the
district court ordered a presentence investigation report (PSI).
For his conviction of first degree murder, a Class IA felony,
Hernandez was sentenced to 60 to 80 years’ imprisonment. For
his conviction of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor
vehicle, a Class ID felony, Hernandez received a sentence
of 20 to 40 years’ imprisonment. For each conviction of use
of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, a Class IC felony,
Hernandez received a sentence of 10 to 20 years’ imprison-
ment. The sentences were ordered to be served consecutively.
Hernandez was given credit for 957 days served.
Additional facts will be discussed below as necessary.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
Hernandez assigns, restated, that the district court abused
its discretion by (1) overruling his objection to, and receiving
into evidence, the firearm recovered from Morelos-Pasillas’
home; (2) overruling his objection and motion for mistrial
to testimony about Morelos-Pasillas’ firearm conviction and
probationary status; (3) sustaining the State’s objection to

- 166 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
Perez-Carrisales’ mental health records and testimony by his
treating physician; and (4) sustaining the State’s objection to
testimony regarding Perez-Carrisales’ consciousness of guilt.
He assigns that (5) the evidence was insufficient to support
his convictions. Hernandez also assigns that the district court
abused its discretion in (6) receiving victim impact statements
that contained inadmissible characterizations and opinions and
(7) in imposing excessive sentences.
IV. STANDARD OF REVIEW
[1,2] In proceedings where the Nebraska Evidence Rules
apply, the admissibility of evidence is controlled by the
Nebraska Evidence Rules; judicial discretion is involved only
when the rules make discretion a factor in determining admis-
sibility. State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb. 192, 21 N.W.3d 615 (2025).
Where the Nebraska Evidence Rules commit the evidentiary
question at issue to the discretion of the trial court, an appel-
late court reviews the admissibility of evidence for an abuse
of discretion. Id.
[3] An abuse of discretion occurs when a trial court’s deci-
sion is based upon reasons that are untenable or unreasonable
or if its action is clearly against justice or conscience, rea-
son, and evidence. State v. Geller, 318 Neb. 441, 16 N.W.3d
365 (2025).
[4] An appellate court will not disturb a trial court’s decision
whether to grant a motion for mistrial unless the trial court has
abused its discretion. Vazquez, supra.
[5] In reviewing a criminal conviction for sufficiency of
the evidence to sustain the conviction, the relevant question
for an appellate court 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.
[6] Absent an abuse of discretion, an appellate court will
not disturb a trial court’s rulings as to the source and type of
evidence and information that may be used in determining

- 167 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
the kind and extent of punishment to be imposed. State v.
Gleaton, 316 Neb. 114, 3 N.W.3d 334 (2024).
[7] Absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court, an
appellate court will not disturb a sentence imposed within
the statutory limits. State v. Jones, 318 Neb. 840, 19 N.W.3d
499 (2025).
V. ANALYSIS
1. Firearm
[8] Hernandez assigns that the district court erred in over-
ruling his objection to, and receiving into evidence, the fire-
arm recovered from Morelos-Pasillas’ home. We find that the
exhibit was relevant and that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in receiving it into evidence. To be relevant,
evidence must be probative and material. State v. Parks, 319
Neb. 773, 25 N.W.3d 146 (2025). 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. Id. A fact is
material if it is of consequence to the determination of the
case. Id.
The firearm located during the search of Morelos-Pasillas’
home was introduced into evidence as an exhibit and received
over Hernandez’ objection. Hernandez argues the firearm
itself was not relevant because it was not the weapon used in
the shooting and photographs of it had already been received
into evidence. The State does not agree that it was error to
receive the firearm into evidence but argues that the claim
necessarily fails because Hernandez concedes the firearm was
cumulative to other evidence and any error in its admittance
would be harmless.
On appeal, Hernandez argues that the only purpose for
the firearm was to show his connection to individuals who
unlawfully possessed handguns. We disagree and find the fire-
arm was relevant to counter Hernandez’ theory of the case.
Hernandez’ position was that there was an alternative sus-
pect and that questions asked of some witnesses implied the

- 168 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
witnesses were lying and were encouraged by law enforce-
ment to name Hernandez as the suspect. An investigator was
questioned about an interview with Maximilliano in which
the investigator stated that they would “need everybody on the
same page.” Samuel was asked on cross-examination about his
“changed” story. During closing arguments, trial counsel noted
that detectives interviewed various witnesses and “continually
encouraged them to come up with answers.”
The State was permitted to counter Hernandez’ theory of the
case. It did this in part by putting forth evidence that the police
had conducted a thorough investigation regarding alternative
suspects. This included providing the jury with information,
and supporting exhibits, regarding the firearm found during
the search of Morelos-Pasillas’ home. Although the firearm
was ultimately determined not to have been the weapon used
in the shooting, the police did investigate and examine the
evidence found, including the firearm.
Hernandez argues that any probative value of the firearm is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. We
acknowledge that receipt of the firearm itself may have had a
more jarring effect on the jurors, but even without the firearm
in evidence, there was evidence before the jury that Hernandez
and Morelos-Pasillas were associated with one another. And a
photograph of the firearm that was found during a search of
Morelos-Pasillas’ home was in evidence. The probative value
of the firearm itself being received into evidence was not out-
weighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. The district court
did not abuse its discretion in receiving it into evidence. This
assignment of error fails.
2. Morelos-Pasillas’
Firearm Conviction
Hernandez assigns that the district court erred in overrul-
ing his objection and motion for mistrial following testimony
about Morelos-Pasillas’ probationary status as a result of a

- 169 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
firearm conviction. We find that the district court did not err
in this regard.
(a) Additional Background
Prior to trial, the State filed a motion in limine request-
ing in part that Hernandez be precluded from mentioning any
State witness’ past or pending juvenile court proceedings, past
arrests not resulting in convictions for felonies involving dis-
honesty or false statement, or court proceedings where no plea
agreement is in place. The motion in limine was granted.
During trial, an investigator testified that Morelos-Pasillas
was an associate of Hernandez and that Morelos-Pasillas was
on probation for a firearm conviction. Hernandez moved to
strike the answer that Morelos-Pasillas was on probation for
a firearm conviction and moved for a mistrial. He argued that
there was no relevance to the information regarding the fire-
arm conviction other than to “dirty” Hernandez and that the
response violated the court’s order on the State’s motion in
limine regarding firearm convictions.
The district court noted that there had been previous testi-
mony that a firearm had been found during a probation search
at Morelos-Pasillas’ home. Hernandez argued that the convic-
tion for a firearm charge was new information. The district
court overruled the objection and the motion for mistrial.
(b) Analysis
Hernandez argues the evidence regarding Morelos-Pasillas’
firearm conviction was not relevant and that the district court
overruled his objection due to a mistaken belief that the infor-
mation had already been presented. When overruling the
objection, the district court noted that much of the informa-
tion had already been introduced into evidence. The district
court noted that “based off the evidence that’s already come
in, it covers almost all of that.” The district court was aware
that not all the information the investigator testified to had
been admitted into evidence, but much of it already had. The
only new information was that Morelos-Pasillas’ probation

- 170 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
was due to a firearm conviction. That information explained
why, in the words of the investigator, “we believed it to be a
good lead to follow.”
On appeal, Hernandez argues the ruling allowed additional
irrelevant testimony of an associate who had a firearm convic-
tion. But the jury was presented with evidence that Hernandez
associated with Morelos-Pasillas, that Morelos-Pasillas was
on probation, and that during a search of his home a fire-
arm was found. The jury was aware that Hernandez associ-
ated with someone who possessed firearms, and the firearm
conviction explained law enforcement’s decision to search
Morelos-Pasillas’ home. The district court did not abuse its dis-
cretion in overruling Hernandez’ objection to this testimony.
[9] Hernandez argues the district court erred in overruling
his motion for mistrial because the court’s order on the State’s
motion in limine prohibited the introduction of evidence
regarding past juvenile court proceedings. Where a motion
for mistrial is premised on adducing evidence that violates an
order in limine, an appellate court will consider that the trial
judge was in the best position to assess the potential impact
of such evidence on the jury. State v. Vazquez, 319 Neb. 192,
21 N.W.3d 615 (2025).
In Vasquez, supra, the Nebraska Supreme Court determined
that the district court had not erred in overruling a motion for
mistrial based on an order in limine prohibiting the introduc-
tion of certain evidence. It noted that although the evidence
that had been introduced was a “technical violation of the
court’s order in limine,” it could not conclude that it was of
such a nature that it actually prejudiced the defendant. Id. at
192, 21 N.W.3d at 642.
Here, as discussed above, the jury was already aware
Hernandez associated with someone who possessed firearms. It
was also aware that Morelos-Pasillas was on juvenile probation.
We cannot say the additional evidence that Morelos-Pasillas
was on probation for a firearm conviction was of such a nature
to actually prejudice Hernandez.

- 171 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
The district court did not abuse its discretion in overrul-
ing Hernandez’ motion for mistrial based on a violation of
the order in limine. As stated above, the district court did
not abuse its discretion in overruling Hernandez’ objection to
this same testimony. Because the district court did not abuse
its discretion in overruling Hernandez’ objection to the testi-
mony that Morelos-Pasillas was on probation for a firearm-
related conviction, it did not abuse its discretion in denying
Hernandez’ motion for mistrial due to the receipt of this infor-
mation. This assignment of error fails.
3. Mental Health Records
Hernandez assigns that the district court erred in sustain-
ing the State’s objection to Perez-Carrisales’ mental health
records and testimony by his treating physician. We find the
records were not relevant to Hernandez’ alternative suspect
theory, and the district court did not err in its decision.
(a) Additional Background
Prior 	to 	trial, 	Hernandez 	filed 	a 	motion 	to 	exam-
ine Perez-Carrisales’ medical records, pursuant to State v.
Trammell, 231 Neb. 137, 435 N.W.2d 197 (1989). The dis-
trict court granted the request, reviewed the records, and
determined that certain records could be relevant to the case
and made them available for the parties to review. At trial,
Hernandez wished to have one of Perez-Carrisales’ treating
physicians testify regarding statements Perez-Carrisales made
as shown in his medical records. The State objected based on
relevancy, foundation, and hearsay.
The district court sustained the State’s objections on the
basis that many of the statements it believed Hernandez
wished to use were not relevant, that some were hearsay or
double hearsay, and that any statements made for the purpose
of diagnosis and treatment were not competent to show the
truth of the matter asserted. It acknowledged that in some
statements Perez-Carrisales mentioned this specific shooting,
but the statements were not helpful to the defense.

- 172 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
Hernandez made an offer of proof at trial, setting forth
statements in Perez-Carrisales’ medical records that Hernandez
argued supported his theory that Perez-Carrisales was an alter-
native suspect. The statements included that Perez-Carrisales
had been involved in murders and driveby shootings and that
he had violent thoughts toward police, heard voices that had
told him to kill police, disbelieved in death, and liked guns.
He stated that he had to attend court related to the murder of
a 14-year-old girl, that he was in the car when the shots were
fired, and that he told the shooter not to do it. Perez-Carrisales
made statements that he was lustful to kill, that he would kill
himself before going to prison, and that he practiced what he
would say to the judge at his hearing.
(b) Analysis
Hernandez argues the statements were relevant for his
theory that Perez-Carrisales was an alternative suspect. He
argues the statements, in combination with the testimony that
Perez-Carrisales was sitting in the front passenger seat and
the testimony from Campos that the shots came from the front
passenger window, make it less likely that Hernandez was the
shooter and more likely that Perez-Carrisales was the shooter.
Hernandez argues that the statements fell within the medi-
cal diagnosis and treatment exception to the hearsay rule and
could be used for the truth of the matter asserted.
Although we agree the district court erred in stating that
because the statements were made for purposes of medi-
cal diagnosis and treatment they could not be used for the
truth of the matter asserted, we nonetheless agree they were
properly excluded because they were not relevant. Neb. Rev.
Stat. § 27-402 (Reissue 2016) provides in part that evidence
which is not relevant is not admissible. To be relevant, evi-
dence must be probative and material. State v. Parks, 319
Neb. 773, 25 N.W.3d 146 (2025). 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. Id. A fact is

- 173 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
material if it is of consequence to the determination of the
case. Id. As the evidence at issue here was not relevant, it was
not admissible.
The statements Hernandez references in the medical records
did not support the inclusion of Perez-Carrisales as an alterna-
tive suspect. Perez-Carrisales did make statements in 2023 that
he had been involved in murders and driveby shootings and
that he had violent thoughts toward police officers. However,
the statements Perez-Carrisales made that related to the shoot-
ing at issue were that he was present, but not the shooter, and
that he told the shooter not to do it.
Even when viewed in the context of the conflicting testi-
mony regarding where Perez-Carrisales was seated in the car,
the statements do not support the alternative suspect theory.
At trial, Campos testified that the shots were fired from the
area of the front passenger seat and stated that Hernandez
was the shooter. Samuel testified that Perez-Carrisales sat in
the front passenger seat, but he also stated that Hernandez
was the shooter. Although there was conflicting testimony
regarding where Perez-Carrisales and Hernandez were seated
in the car, there was no conflicting testimony as to whether
Hernandez was the shooter. Perez-Carrisales’ statements to
his medical provider that he was present at the shooting and
told the shooter not to do it support that Perez-Carrisales was
in the car, but was not the shooter. The statements Hernandez
sought to introduce did not tend to make it more likely that
Perez-Carrisales was the shooter, rather than Hernandez. As
such, they were not relevant and were not admissible.
Even if we were to agree with Hernandez that some of
the statements may have been relevant to his theory that
Perez-Carrisales was an alternative suspect, we cannot say
the district court abused its discretion in its determination
to sustain the State’s objection to this evidence. Statements
made by Perez-Carrisales that he was a cold-blooded killer,
would not get caught, liked guns, and did not desire to fol-
low laws may have been relevant. However, a trial court’s

- 174 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
determination of the relevancy and admissibility of evidence
must be upheld in the absence of an abuse of discretion. State
v. Carpenter, 293 Neb. 860, 880 N.W.2d 630 (2016).
Here, the reason for Perez-Carrisales’ hospitalization was
for a mental health evaluation for court committal following
statements of suicidal and homicidal ideation. Notes describing
providers’ encounters with him in an emergency department
stated that Perez-Carrisales “appear[ed] acutely psychotic.”
A later 	treatment 	note 	described 	Perez-Carrisales’ behav-
ior as “bizarre.” Another listed his diagnosis/assessment as
“[p]sychosis, unspecified.” Viewing the possibly relevant state-
ments in the context in which they were made, along with the
other statements that specifically related to the shooting—for
example, denying that he was the shooter—we cannot say the
district court abused its discretion in its determination to sus-
tain the State’s objection.
4. Social Media Post
Hernandez assigns that the district court erred in sustaining
the State’s objection to testimony regarding Perez-Carrisales’
consciousness of guilt. We find that the evidence was not rel-
evant to show consciousness of guilt and that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection.
(a) Additional Background
At trial, Hernandez questioned a police officer regarding a
social media post Perez-Carrisales made on October 16, 2023.
The post showed a picture of a courtroom, with the words
“Any body [sic] got a free gun for me” superimposed over the
picture. Hernandez argued the post showed Perez-Carrisales’
consciousness of guilt. The State objected, arguing that the
post came from a proceeding in the courtroom related to
Perez-Carrisales’ availability for a deposition and was not con-
sciousness of guilt for the December 2021 shooting.
The district court recalled being made aware of the post
when it was originally created and understood the post to be
a potential threat against the district court and not related to

- 175 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
the case. Hernandez acknowledged the post was made on the
day Perez-Carrisales had been ordered to appear in court to
be appointed counsel and to be ordered to sit for a deposi-
tion in this case. He argued that the posting was made when
Perez-Carrisales had been ordered to appear for a matter
related to this case and was a threat. The district court sus-
tained the State’s objection to the social media post, stating
it did not see how it was connected to consciousness of guilt
for the crimes charged.
(b) Analysis
Hernandez’ theory of the case was that Perez-Carrisales
was an alternative suspect. On appeal, Hernandez argues that
the social media post was relevant because “[a]fter appearing
in court, [Perez-Carrisales] made a threat involving a firearm
and posted it online. When raising an alternative suspect
theory, any threats made by the alternative suspect that are
violent and pertinent to a case are relevant to the defense’s
theory.” Brief for appellant at 30. Section 27-402 provides in
part that evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. To
be relevant, evidence must be probative and material. State
v. Parks, 319 Neb. 773, 25 N.W.3d 146 (2025). 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.
Id. A fact is material if it is of consequence to the determina-
tion of the case. Id.
The post at issue was made after Perez-Carrisales had
been ordered to appear in court and to sit for a deposition
in this case. The district court understood the post to be a
threat to the district court. We agree with the district court’s
interpretation.
When viewing the post in the context in which it was
made, we determine it does not show consciousness of guilt
as to the shooting. The threat appeared to be based on
Perez-Carrisales’ anger at being forced to appear in court, not
about the specific case for which he was forced to appear.

- 176 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
We cannot see how this post makes it more probable that
Perez-Carrisales was the shooter, rather than Hernandez. As
such, it was not relevant. The district court did not abuse
its discretion in sustaining the State’s objection to the social
media post. This assignment of error fails.
5. Sufficiency of Evidence
Hernandez assigns that the evidence was insufficient to sup-
port his convictions. We disagree. In reviewing a criminal con-
viction for sufficiency of the evidence, 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. State v.
Adams, 320 Neb. 316, 27 N.W.3d 23 (2025).
The State was required to put forth sufficient evidence such
that a rational trier of fact could conclude that Hernandez
purposefully and with premeditated malice killed Santiago,
that he unlawfully and intentionally discharged a firearm
at an occupied motor vehicle, and that he used a firearm in
his commissions of those offenses. The evidence established
that Hernandez was riding in a car driven by Samuel when
Campos drove by them. Hernandez gave Samuel a gun,
but Samuel gave it back to Hernandez. When Samuel’s car
was next to Campos’ car, Hernandez fired 10 shots toward
Campos’ car. One of the bullets struck Santiago, who died as
a result. Bullet defects were observed on Campos’ car, and
projectiles were recovered from the inside of the car. The
evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State,
was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to conclude that
Hernandez, purposefully and with premeditated malice, killed
Santiago, that he unlawfully and intentionally discharged a
firearm at an occupied vehicle, and that he used a firearm to
commit both crimes.
In support of his argument, Hernandez points to conflicting
testimony regarding where the shooter was seated and the lack

- 177 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
of DNA evidence placing him in the vehicle. Although Samuel
recalled Hernandez was seated in the back passenger seat,
Campos remembered Hernandez sitting in the front passenger
seat. When speaking to police immediately after the shoot-
ing, Maximilliano stated Hernandez was in the front passen-
ger seat, but at trial testified that Hernandez was in the back
passenger seat. Although witness testimony was inconsistent
regarding where Hernandez was seated, it was consistent that
he was the shooter. The absence of Hernandez’ DNA in the car
does not make his presence in it on the night of the shooting a
factual impossibility. Hernandez is asking this court to resolve
conflicts in the evidence and pass on witness credibility, but
resolving these matters was for the jury. On appeal, we do
not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility
of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence, as such matters were
for the jury. See Adams, supra. Viewing the evidence in the
light most favorable to the State, we determine the evidence
was sufficient to support the convictions. This assignment of
error fails.
6. Victim Impact Letters
Hernandez assigns that the district court abused its dis-
cretion in receiving victim impact statements that contained
inadmissible characterizations and opinions. We find no abuse
of discretion. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-1848 (Reissue
2024), a victim may make a written or oral impact statement
to be used in the preparation of the PSI. Hernandez argues that
case law provides limitations on a victim’s family members’
characterization and opinion about the crime, the defendant,
or the appropriate sentence and that such statements may not
be received.
The Supreme Court addressed a similar argument in State
v. Gleaton, 316 Neb. 114, 3 N.W.3d 334 (2024). In Gleaton,
the court noted that although it had held in some capital cases
that victim’s family members’ characterizations and opinions
about the crime, the defendant, and the appropriate sentence

- 178 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
may not be received into evidence, the defendant had pointed
to no authority that this same limitation applied to noncapi-
tal cases. The court noted that even if the sentencing court
had been precluded from considering such information, it had
expressly stated it would not consider it, which had been held
in capital cases not to violate the Eighth Amendment. See
Gleaton, supra.
At a hearing prior to sentencing, Hernandez moved to
exclude many of the victim impact statements from consid-
eration. The court ruled that it would accept the statements
into evidence but that it would not consider any inappropriate
characterizations or opinions. At sentencing, the district court
stated it would give the victim impact statements the weight
and credibility they were due and would disregard any portions
not supported by the record. It stated it would not consider
inappropriate characterizations and opinions about Hernandez,
the crimes, or the appropriate sentences that were contained
within the statements. Later in the hearing, the district court
again stated that there were certain portions of the victim
impact statements that it had to disregard. Here, as in Gleaton,
supra, it is clear the district court did not consider any of the
challenged statements that were included in the victim impact
statements. We find no abuse of discretion.
7. Excessive Sentences
Hernandez assigns that the district court abused its dis-
cretion in imposing excessive sentences. We find no abuse
of discretion.
Hernandez was convicted of first degree murder, a Class
IA felony, which, due to his age, was punishable by a maxi-
mum sentence of not greater than life imprisonment and a
minimum sentence of not less than 40 years’ imprisonment.
See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105.02 (Reissue 2016). For his con-
viction of a Class IA felony, Hernandez received a sentence
of 60 to 80 years’ imprisonment. Hernandez was convicted
of discharging a firearm at an occupied motor vehicle, a

- 179 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
Class ID felony. This is punishable by a maximum sentence
of 50 years’ imprisonment and a mandatory minimum sen-
tence of 3 years’ imprisonment. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-105
(Cum. Supp. 2024). For his conviction of a Class ID felony,
Hernandez received a sentence of 20 to 40 years’ imprison-
ment. Hernandez was also convicted of two counts of use of
a deadly weapon to commit a felony, a Class IC felony. This
is punishable by a maximum sentence of 50 years’ imprison-
ment and a mandatory minimum sentence of 5 years’ impris-
onment. See id. For each conviction of a Class IC felony,
Hernandez received a sentence of 10 to 20 years’ imprison-
ment. All of Hernandez’ sentences are within statutory limits.
As such, we review for an abuse of discretion.
[10] When imposing a sentence, a sentencing judge should
consider the defendant’s (1) age, (2) mentality, (3) education
and experience, (4) social and cultural background, (5) past
criminal record or record of law-abiding conduct, and (6) moti-
vation for the offense, as well as (7) the nature of the offense
and (8) the amount of violence involved in the commission
of the crime. State v. Jones, 318 Neb. 840, 19 N.W.3d 499
(2025). A sentencing court is not limited to any mathematically
applied set of factors, but the appropriateness of the sentence
is necessarily a subjective judgment that includes the sentenc-
ing judge’s observations of the defendant’s demeanor and
attitude and all the facts and circumstances surrounding the
defendant’s life. Id.
[11] Where a defendant was under the age of 18 when he or
she committed a Class IA felony, § 28-105.02 dictates that the
sentencing judge must also consider mitigating factors, such as
the defendant’s (1) age at the time of the offense, (2) impetuos-
ity, (3) family and community environment, and (4) ability to
appreciate risks and consequences of the conduct, as well as
(5) the outcome of a comprehensive mental health evaluation
of the defendant conducted by an adolescent mental health
professional licensed in Nebraska. State v. Ramirez, 314 Neb.
419, 990 N.W.2d 550 (2023).

- 180 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
Hernandez was 16 years old when he committed the crimes
at issue. The PSI shows that Hernandez was 18 years old at
the time of sentencing and had graduated from high school.
His score on the level of service case/management inventory
was 25, placing him in the high risk range. The PSI noted
that during Hernandez’ incarceration throughout this case,
he had received 14 disciplinary lockdown penalties. At the
time of the PSI interview, Hernandez was in administrative
segregation, in part for threatening an officer. The PSI noted
that although the charges here were very serious, this was the
first time that Hernandez had been convicted or adjudicated of
a crime. The PSI included an evaluation that had been com-
pleted when Hernandez had requested his case be transferred
to juvenile court. The evaluation contained detailed informa-
tion on Hernandez’ life, his developmental maturity, and his
treatment amenability.
Hernandez’ counsel submitted a sentencing memorandum
to the court in which she highlighted the case law surround-
ing sentencing for individuals who were juveniles when they
committed crimes. The memorandum addressed brain develop-
ment in juveniles and how it impacted their ability to consider
future consequences, as well as the development that can occur
during teenage years and into an individual’s early twenties.
Hernandez’ counsel also discussed much of this same informa-
tion when addressing the district court at sentencing.
The district court reviewed the PSI prior to sentencing,
along with the sentencing memorandum. When explaining
the elements it took into account when fashioning the sen-
tences, the district court noted that the murder conviction
involved the senseless murder of another juvenile and that
the discharge of a firearm conviction involved two other
victims. Hernandez argues that the district court’s statements
do not make it clear that it considered the relevant sentenc-
ing factors, highlighting different factors it did not discuss.
However, a sentencing court is not required to articulate on
the record that it has considered each sentencing factor, nor to

- 181 -
Nebraska Court of Appeals Advance Sheets
34 Nebraska Appellate Reports
STATE v. HERNANDEZ
Cite as 34 Neb. App. 162
make specific findings as to the facts pertaining to the factors
or the weight given them. See State v. Greer, 309 Neb. 667,
962 N.W.2d 217 (2021).
The sentences imposed are within the statutory limits. The
district court considered the appropriate factors when fash-
ioning the sentences. Hernandez has failed to show an abuse
of discretion.
VI. CONCLUSION
We find the district court did not abuse its discretion in its
evidentiary rulings. We further determine that the evidence
was sufficient to support the convictions, that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in accepting the victim impact
statements for purposes of sentencing, and that the sentences
imposed were not an abuse of discretion. We affirm the judg-
ment of the district court.
Affirmed.