## Facts

- Paul J. Rowe lived with his wife, Layne Rowe, at a farm near Alvo, Nebraska.
- On May 1, 1980, their home burned; firefighters found Layne’s body inside.
- Medical evidence showed a skull fracture consistent with a hammer blow rather than an accidental fall.
- Layne’s body was extensively mutilated; Rowe admitted he cut her body.
- Rowe claimed Layne fell down stairs and that he then suffered a temporary psychotic episode, leading to the mutilation while attempting to remove a non-existent fetus.
- The State alleged Rowe killed Layne and set the fire to conceal the homicide.
- The trial court admitted photographs showing (1) the body at the fire scene, (2) the mutilated torso, and (3) an autopsy image of the skull fracture used to explain expert testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the court erred by refusing to instruct on manslaughter as a lesser-included offense of the homicide charge where evidence could support a lesser mental state than murder.
2. Whether the court erred by denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror whose views about insanity acquittals could affect impartiality.
3. Whether the court abused its discretion by admitting graphic photographs, including an autopsy photograph of the skull fracture.
4. Whether the court was required to give a requested instruction defining “brain death.”
5. Whether prosecutorial questioning about differences in Rowe’s appearance at trial versus the day of the crime was improper and prejudicial.
6. Whether the court erred by excluding tape recordings of a sodium-amytal psychiatric interview offered to support the defense expert’s opinion.

## Decision

- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the second-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial on the homicide charge.
- The court held Rowe was entitled to a manslaughter instruction because there was evidence from which a jury could rationally convict of manslaughter and acquit of murder.
- The court affirmed the second-degree arson conviction and the concurrent sentence.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting the challenged photographs.
- The court upheld the refusal to give a “brain death” instruction.
- The court found no reversible prejudice from the prosecutor’s questions about Rowe’s changed appearance.
- The court upheld exclusion of the sodium-amytal interview tapes as within the trial court’s evidentiary discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant is entitled to jury instructions on all lesser-included offenses supported by the evidence; refusal is reversible error when the jury could rationally convict of the lesser and acquit of the greater.
- Photographs of a homicide victim, though graphic, are admissible if relevant to a material issue and if their probative value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice; they may illustrate witness testimony on injuries and cause of death.
- A prospective juror may be subject to removal for cause if the juror’s views about the consequences of an insanity verdict would affect the ability to decide solely on the law and evidence.
- Trial courts have substantial discretion to exclude underlying out-of-court materials relied on by experts (including sodium-amytal interviews) when hearsay and reliability concerns outweigh probative value, even if the expert may describe the basis for the opinion in testimony.
- A requested instruction may be refused when not supported by the evidence or when the instructions as a whole adequately cover the applicable law.

## Conclusion

The court ordered a new homicide trial because the jury was not allowed to consider manslaughter despite evidence supporting that lesser offense, while leaving intact the arson conviction and evidentiary rulings admitting relevant photographs and excluding unreliable hearsay materials.


State v. Rowe, 315 N.W.2d 250 (Neb. 1982)