Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Karsen H. Rezac was involved in a vehicular collision on December 23, 2022, in Lincoln, Nebraska, which resulted in the shooting death of Kupo Mleya. Rezac, who was identified as a suspect based on vehicle debris and witness reports, admitted to firing shots at Mleya's vehicle after the collision. Rezac was charged with second-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. He later pled no contest to second-degree murder as part of a plea agreement, and the firearm charge was dropped.The district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, denied Rezac's motion to continue his sentencing hearing, which he requested to allow more time to gather and review his mental health records. The court proceeded with the sentencing, considering the presentence investigation report and supplemental items. Rezac was sentenced to 60 years to life imprisonment. Rezac appealed, arguing that the court abused its discretion in denying the continuance and imposing an excessive sentence, and that his trial counsel was ineffective in several respects.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that Rezac forfeited his argument regarding the denial of the continuance by failing to raise the issue at the sentencing hearing. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the sentencing, as the district court had considered the relevant mitigating factors. The court rejected Rezac's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel related to the failure to move to suppress his statement to law enforcement and the failure to explain the penalties for second-degree murder, finding that the record refuted these claims.However, the court found the record insufficient to address Rezac's claims that his trial counsel was ineffective for advising him that self-defense was not a viable argument, failing to explain the difference between second-degree murder and involuntary manslaughter, and failing to provide his mental health records to probation or the court. The court affirmed Rezac's conviction and sentence but noted that these claims of ineffective assistance of counsel could not be resolved on direct appeal due to the insufficient record. View "State v. Rezac" on Justia Law

Phillip and Jodi Peterson hired Brandon Coverdell Construction, Inc. (BCC) to perform work on their home following a hailstorm. The Petersons were dissatisfied with the quality of BCC's work, while BCC was unhappy with the Petersons' partial payment. Both parties accused each other of breaching their written agreement and filed lawsuits in the county court. The county court ruled in favor of BCC, finding that the Petersons committed the first material breach.The Petersons appealed to the District Court for Douglas County but failed to file a statement of errors. They obtained a continuance to amend the bill of exceptions in the county court. The district court eventually found that the county court had committed plain error by entering judgment in favor of BCC, concluding that the written agreement was an unenforceable illusory contract. BCC then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in considering the supplemental bill of exceptions, which was not properly part of the record. The Supreme Court also determined that the county court did not commit plain error. The county court's decision to focus on the issues presented by the parties, rather than the enforceability of the contract, did not result in damage to the integrity, reputation, or fairness of the judicial process. Consequently, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the district court's order and remanded the case with directions to affirm the county court's judgment. View "Peterson v. Brandon Coverdell Constr." on Justia Law

An employee, Matthew I. Ortega, voluntarily quit his job as an office manager at Island Towing after 17 years, citing work-related stress from interactions with law enforcement as the reason. Ortega applied for unemployment benefits, stating that the stress affected his mental health and ability to perform his job. The Nebraska Department of Labor denied his application, finding that he did not have good cause to quit.Ortega appealed to the Nebraska Department of Labor’s Appeal Tribunal, where both he and his supervisor, Chloe Aguilar, testified. Ortega described two specific incidents involving law enforcement that caused him significant stress, one of which occurred 2½ years prior to his resignation. Aguilar confirmed the ongoing negative interactions with law enforcement but stated that there was no way to alleviate the stress. The Appeal Tribunal upheld the denial, stating that Ortega did not provide sufficient evidence, such as medical documentation, to prove that his stress constituted good cause for quitting.Ortega then appealed to the district court for Hall County, which affirmed the Appeal Tribunal’s decision. The district court agreed that Ortega’s stress was a health concern requiring medical evidence and noted that Ortega had not pursued alternative solutions to preserve the employment relationship, such as seeking a leave of absence or modifying his job duties.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court’s judgment. The court held that Ortega failed to meet his burden of proof to show good cause for voluntarily leaving his employment. The court found that the evidence provided, including the details of only one specific negative interaction with law enforcement, was insufficient to establish that Ortega’s work conditions were an increasingly unreasonable burden affecting his health or sense of well-being. View "Ortega v. Albin" on Justia Law

The appellant, Dilang N. Dat, was convicted of assault by a confined person following an altercation with another inmate, Tilian Tilian, in the Hall County jail. Dat punched Tilian multiple times, causing him to fall to the ground. The incident was captured on surveillance video, and a corrections officer testified about the altercation and its aftermath. Dat was sentenced to one year of imprisonment with 228 days' credit for time served, followed by nine months of post-release supervision.The district court overruled Dat's motion for self-representation, finding his waiver of counsel was not voluntary as he stated it was made "in duress." The court also quashed a subpoena for a witness, Darla Sparr, because it was served less than two days before she was ordered to appear, and Dat failed to show good cause to shorten the statutory period for service. Dat's counsel argued that Sparr's testimony was necessary to challenge the evidence of bodily injury, but the court found no valid reason for the late subpoena.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's judgment. The court held that physical manifestation of an injury is not required to meet the definition of bodily injury under Nebraska law. The evidence, including the video and testimony, was sufficient for a rational trier of fact to find that Dat caused bodily injury to Tilian. The court also found no abuse of discretion in quashing the subpoena for untimely service and concluded that Dat's trial counsel was not ineffective, as there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have been different had the subpoena been timely served. The court did not find plain error in the sentencing credit calculation due to the lack of a clear record on the issue. View "State v. Dat" on Justia Law

The case involves the administration of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. Barry Masek, a contingent beneficiary and successor cotrustee, alleged that his siblings, Mark Masek and Dianne Yahiro, also contingent beneficiaries and successor cotrustees, breached the trust. Barry claimed that Mark and Dianne blocked access to their mother, Patricia Masek, the settlor, beneficiary, and trustee, and misused trust assets for their benefit. Patricia later died, and the county court entered a money judgment against Mark and Dianne in favor of Barry and overruled their motion for a new trial.Mark and Dianne appealed the denial of their motion for a new trial. The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the county court's decision because it did not state the legal basis for finding Mark and Dianne liable for breach of trust. The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine their liability either as de facto trustees or by participating in a breach of trust committed by Patricia.On remand, the county court received additional evidence and determined that Mark and Dianne were liable to the trust by participating in or inducing Patricia to commit breaches of trust while she was in their care. The court issued a judgment against Mark and Dianne for $1,276,858, which included various expenditures from the trust assets. Mark and Dianne appealed again, and Barry cross-appealed.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that competent evidence supported the county court's findings for some, but not all, of the disputed expenditures. The court modified the judgment to $619,000, affirming it in favor of Barry in his capacity as cotrustee of the Charles and Patricia Masek Family Trust. The court also upheld the award of additional attorney fees to Barry. View "In re Masek Family Trust" on Justia Law

The case involves Benjamin D. Rieker, a Lincoln Police Department officer, who was working off-duty as a security guard at a hospital. On October 31, 2020, Jan Noch, a patient, became disruptive and was asked to leave the hospital. Rieker encountered Noch in a hallway and instructed him to leave through the ambulance bay exit, but Noch insisted on leaving through the main lobby. Rieker claimed Noch threatened him and made aggressive movements, prompting Rieker to push Noch, causing him to fall. Security footage and eyewitnesses provided conflicting accounts of the incident.The county court for Lancaster County convicted Rieker of third-degree assault and false reporting after a bench trial. Rieker was sentenced to 18 months’ probation for each conviction, to be served concurrently. Rieker appealed to the district court, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions and that his motion to suppress certain statements should have been granted. The district court affirmed the convictions and sentences.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions. The court found that the evidence, including security footage and eyewitness testimony, supported the conclusion that Rieker’s use of force was not justified under the defense of property statute. The court also found that Rieker knowingly provided false information in his reports and during an interview with law enforcement, intending to impede the investigation of an actual criminal matter.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed Rieker’s convictions and sentences, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to support both the assault and false reporting convictions. The court did not find it necessary to address the suppression issue, as any potential error in admitting the ACI form was deemed harmless given the other competent evidence supporting the convictions. View "State v. Rieker" on Justia Law

Anthony J. Garcia was convicted of four counts of first-degree murder, among other charges, for crimes committed in Omaha, Nebraska, in 2008 and 2013. In October 2016, a jury found him guilty, and he was sentenced to death in 2018. Garcia's convictions and sentences were affirmed on direct appeal. While his direct appeal was pending, Garcia filed a motion for a new trial, claiming newly discovered evidence suggested he was not competent during earlier proceedings.The District Court for Douglas County denied Garcia's motion for a new trial. The court found that the evidence Garcia presented, which included his positive response to involuntary medication in 2019 and a diagnosis of hearing loss in 2020, did not qualify as newly discovered evidence because it did not exist at the time of his trial or mitigation hearing. Additionally, the court found the motion was untimely, as it was filed three years after Garcia's counsel obtained the relevant records, without any explanation for the delay.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that Garcia's motion and supporting documents failed to identify evidence so substantial that it would probably result in a different verdict if a new trial were granted. The court also found that Garcia's claims regarding his competency and ability to contribute to his defense did not warrant a new trial, as the evidence did not suggest he was incompetent during the original proceedings. Furthermore, the court concluded that Garcia could not establish ineffective assistance of counsel, as he could not show that any deficient performance by his counsel prejudiced his defense. View "State v. Garcia" on Justia Law

The case involves a father appealing a district court's order modifying parenting time under a dissolution decree, which included granting the mother sole discretion over all parenting time with their two teenage daughters. The father also appeals the denial of his pro se motion for a new trial, alleging he lacked notice of the modification hearing. The father did not appear at the hearing, but an attorney from the same firm as his attorney of record did appear, cross-examined the mother, and made arguments. The court noted in its modification order that the father was represented by his attorney at the hearing.The district court had previously dissolved the marriage, awarding the mother sole physical custody and both parents joint legal custody of their four children. The father filed a motion for an order to show cause, alleging the mother violated the decree by denying him parenting time and disparaging him to the children. He also filed a complaint for modification, seeking to reduce his child support obligations. The mother counterclaimed, seeking modifications to the custody arrangement and child support.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the father's motion for a new trial. The court held that notice to the father's attorney constituted notice to the father, satisfying procedural due process requirements. The court also found that there was a material change in circumstances warranting modification of the parenting plan, including poor communication between the parents and the father's failure to exercise visitation rights.However, the Supreme Court held that the district court's order unlawfully delegated judicial authority to the mother by giving her sole discretion over the father's parenting time with the daughters. The court reversed this part of the order and remanded the case with directions to formulate a reasonable visitation plan in the best interests of the daughters. The court affirmed the remainder of the district court's order, including modifications to the father's parenting time with the other two children and the clarification of legal custody. View "Sulzle v. Sulzle" on Justia Law

Courtney Galloway, a used car sales manager at Husker Auto Group, LLC, was terminated from her position in January 2019. Galloway claimed her termination was in retaliation for investigating and reporting a fraudulent sales scheme involving a fellow employee, Ryan Mathis. She alleged that the scheme involved selling vehicles to straw purchasers to evade state sales tax and Mercedes-Benz export policies, and that upper management was aware of and benefited from the scheme.Galloway filed a claim with the Nebraska Equal Opportunity Commission (NEOC), alleging whistleblower retaliation under the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA). The NEOC dismissed her claim, concluding that she had not engaged in protected activity because she reported a coworker’s actions, not those of her employer. The NEOC also found no evidence that the individual who terminated her employment was aware of her protected activity.Galloway then filed a lawsuit in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, asserting claims of retaliation under the NFEPA and wrongful discharge under Nebraska’s public policy exception to the at-will employment rule. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Husker Auto, agreeing with the NEOC’s findings.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo. The court found that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether Husker Auto was involved in or knew of the fraudulent scheme and whether the company knew of Galloway’s role in investigating the scheme. The court noted conflicting testimony and evidence about Husker Auto’s knowledge and involvement, as well as Galloway’s performance and the reasons for her termination. Consequently, the court reversed the district court’s summary judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Galloway v. Husker Auto Group" on Justia Law

The case involves Ryan D. Rivera-Meister, who was charged with attempted intentional child abuse resulting in death after the 16-month-old child of his girlfriend was fatally injured while in his care. Rivera-Meister initially claimed the child fell from a bunk bed, but medical evidence suggested the injuries were inconsistent with such a fall. He was charged in 2017, fled to Guatemala, and was extradited back to Nebraska in 2022. He pleaded no contest to the amended charge and was sentenced to 40 to 50 years in prison.The Hall County District Court sentenced Rivera-Meister and credited him with 706 days for time served in Nebraska but denied his request for an additional 266 days for time spent in custody in Guatemala awaiting extradition. The court reasoned that his decision to flee and not return voluntarily justified denying the additional credit.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and agreed with Rivera-Meister and the State that he was entitled to the additional 266 days of credit for time served in Guatemala. The court held that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,106(1), an offender is entitled to credit for time spent in custody as a result of the charge for which the prison sentence is imposed, regardless of whether that custody was in another state or country. The court modified the sentence to include the additional 266 days, totaling 972 days of credit for time served. The court found no abuse of discretion in the length of the sentence imposed and affirmed the sentence as modified. View "State v. Rivera-Meister" on Justia Law