Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Aubrey C. Trail filed a motion for postconviction relief nearly 14 months after the conclusion of his direct appeal. Trail had previously been found guilty of first-degree murder and criminal conspiracy to commit first-degree murder, and was sentenced to death by a three-judge panel. Trail's direct appeal was unsuccessful, and he did not apply for a stay or file a motion for rehearing. After the mandate issued, Trail requested the appointment of postconviction counsel, which was eventually granted. However, due to various delays, including the withdrawal and replacement of postconviction counsel, Trail filed his motion for postconviction relief on February 14, 2024.The district court for Saline County denied Trail's motion without a hearing, finding it untimely under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-3001(4)(a), which requires postconviction motions to be filed within one year of the conclusion of a direct appeal. The court noted that Trail did not raise any arguments regarding the timeliness of his motion in response to the State's assertion that it was time barred.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decision. The court held that the one-year limitation period for filing postconviction motions under § 29-3001(4) is not subject to equitable tolling, even in capital cases. The court also found that Trail did not demonstrate that an impediment created by state action prevented him from filing his motion within the statutory period. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion or violate Trail's due process rights by denying the motion as time barred without providing an additional opportunity for Trail to present his timeliness arguments. View "State v. Trail" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. During a search of his residence by his probation officer, alcohol and a loaded rifle were found, violating his probation conditions. The probation officer also found an empty handgun box, and the defendant gave conflicting accounts of the handgun's location. Later, the defendant's girlfriend and her mother, along with the defendant's son, searched the house and found a locked case believed to contain the handgun. They handed the case to a law enforcement officer, who later obtained a warrant to open it, confirming it contained the handgun.The district court denied the defendant's motion to suppress the handgun, finding that the officer did not conduct a search but merely accepted the case from private individuals. The court also found that the officer entered the residence with consent. The defendant was found guilty of possessing the handgun but acquitted of possessing the rifle.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, agreeing that the officer entered the residence with consent and that the recovery of the locked case was not the result of a search by law enforcement. The court also found that any error in overruling the motion to suppress was harmless because the defendant did not object to the testimony and evidence presented at trial.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the Fourth Amendment was not violated because the search that discovered the locked case was conducted by private individuals who were not acting as government agents. The court concluded that the officer's acceptance of the case did not constitute a search and that the subsequent warrant to open the case was valid. View "State v. Langley" on Justia Law

Abby G. Poitier, now known as Abby G. Cullins, filed a complaint in the district court for Douglas County to modify a previously entered paternity decree, seeking increased parenting time with her child, S.B. On the day of the trial, she sought to voluntarily dismiss her complaint. The trial court granted the dismissal without conditions and proceeded to trial on the counterclaim filed by Brian P. Beatty, which included a request for attorney fees. Although Brian was not successful on his counterclaim, the district court awarded him a portion of his attorney fees, finding Abby's complaint to be frivolous and interposed solely for delay or harassment.The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's order. The appellate court reasoned that under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-603, the district court retained jurisdiction to consider Brian's counterclaim for attorney fees even after Abby dismissed her complaint. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the district court's award of attorney fees, noting that Abby had not made efforts to have a relationship with S.B. since 2019 and had dismissed her complaint on the day of trial without notice.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed that the district court had jurisdiction to consider Brian's counterclaim for attorney fees and that the award of $1,500 in attorney fees was reasonable. The court found that Abby's actions were frivolous and interposed for delay or harassment, supporting the lower courts' decisions. View "Beatty v. Poitier" on Justia Law

The appellants, Jeffery A. Olson and Dianne M. Dowding, challenged the orders of the district court for Otoe County, which established a prescriptive easement in favor of the appellees, Barbara Fey and L. Gail Wurtele, across the appellants’ property for agricultural farming and recreational use. The order also granted injunctive relief regarding inaccessible crops. The appellants acquired their property in 2016 and locked the gate to the access road, leading to the appellees' action for a declaratory judgment seeking a prescriptive easement and injunctive relief.The district court found that the appellees' use of the access road had been exclusive, adverse, under a claim of right, continuous and uninterrupted, and open and notorious for beyond the full 10-year prescriptive period. The court declared and ordered that the appellees, and their successors in interest, have the right of ingress and egress to their property utilizing the access road across the appellants' property. The court also granted injunctive relief, enjoining the appellants from interfering with the appellees' use of the access road.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and affirmed the district court's decision. The Supreme Court held that the appellees had established the elements of entitlement to a prescriptive easement, and the appellants did not rebut such evidence. The court found that the prescriptive easement for both agricultural and recreational use was supported by the record and did not err in the scope of the relief awarded. The court also agreed with the district court that it was not necessary to address the appellants' theory of an easement by necessity, as the matter was resolved by the prescriptive easement order. View "Fey v. Olson" on Justia Law

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, submitted a request to pool ground water from several registered wells for the 2023-2027 allocation period. The Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) denied their application, citing a rule that allows denial for any reason, including rule violations. The denial was communicated through a letter and a marked application. The Hauxwells challenged this denial, alleging it violated their constitutional rights and was arbitrary and capricious.The Hauxwells filed a petition for review with the district court for Frontier County, Nebraska, under the Nebraska Ground Water Management and Protection Act (NGWMPA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). They argued that the denial was contrary to a court order staying penalties previously imposed by the NRD. The NRD moved to dismiss the petition, arguing that the letter was not a final agency action or an order in a contested case, and thus not subject to judicial review under the APA. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that the letter did not arise from a contested case and was not a final order of the decision-making body.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's dismissal. The court held that the letter denying the Hauxwells' pooling application was not an "order" as defined under the NGWMPA. The court explained that the term "order" in the NGWMPA includes orders required by the act, a rule or regulation, or a decision adopted by the board of directors of a natural resources district. However, the letter in question did not meet these criteria, as it was not issued as part of any case or proceeding and was not required by any specific authority. Consequently, the court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

Bryan and Ami Hauxwell, farmers using ground and surface water for irrigation, were involved in a dispute with the Middle Republican Natural Resources District (NRD) over alleged violations of the NRD’s rules and regulations. The NRD claimed the Hauxwells used ground water to irrigate uncertified acres, failed to install flowmeters, and used non-compliant flowmeters. The NRD issued a cease-and-desist order and penalties after a 2020 hearing, where the NRD’s general manager and counsel participated in the board’s deliberations.The Hauxwells challenged the 2020 findings in the district court for Frontier County, which ruled in their favor, citing due process violations and remanded the case. In 2021, the NRD issued a new complaint and held another hearing, excluding the general manager and counsel from deliberations. The board again found violations but deferred penalties to a later hearing. The district court dismissed the Hauxwells' challenge to the 2021 findings, stating it was not a final order as penalties were not yet determined.In 2022, the NRD held a hearing to determine penalties, resulting in restrictions on the Hauxwells' water use. The Hauxwells filed another petition for review, arguing that the 2020 due process violations tainted the subsequent hearings. The district court agreed, reversing the NRD’s 2022 findings and vacating the penalties.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the district court erred in concluding that the 2020 due process violations tainted the 2021 and 2022 hearings. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with directions to address the other claims in the Hauxwells' petition for review. The court emphasized that the NRD’s actions in 2021 and 2022 were separate and not influenced by the 2020 hearing’s procedural issues. View "Hauxwell v. Middle Republican NRD" on Justia Law

Melissa S. Bret was charged with theft by shoplifting goods valued at $500 or less and having two prior convictions for the same offense, which would classify the crime as a Class IV felony. A jury found her guilty of shoplifting property valued at $77.64. After the jury returned its verdict, the district court adjudged Bret guilty of theft by shoplifting, a Class IV felony, and sentenced her to 1 year’s imprisonment. However, no evidence was presented regarding Bret’s prior convictions, and the court did not make any findings about such convictions.The District Court for Douglas County initially adjudged Bret guilty of a Class IV felony based on the jury's verdict. During the sentencing hearing, the court and both parties proceeded under the assumption that Bret was being sentenced for a Class IV felony. The presentence investigation report also indicated that Bret was charged with and convicted of a Class IV felony. However, the court did not hold a separate enhancement hearing to determine the existence of prior convictions, nor did the State present evidence of such convictions.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and determined that the district court erred in enhancing Bret’s offense to a Class IV felony without evidence of prior convictions. The court held that the sentence imposed was illegal because it exceeded the permissible statutory penalty for a Class II misdemeanor, which is the correct classification based on the jury's finding of the value involved. The Supreme Court vacated Bret’s sentence and remanded the case for resentencing. The court also concluded that the State did not waive its right to seek enhancement and may attempt to prove Bret’s prior convictions on remand. View "State v. Bret" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of sexual assault of a child and one count of child abuse, involving two young victims, M.R. and E.R. The alleged crimes occurred while the defendant was babysitting the children during their mother's part-time evening job. M.R. disclosed the sexual assaults years later, and E.R. disclosed the physical abuse during a forensic interview. The defense argued that the children's memories were unreliable and that the defendant lacked the opportunity to commit the crimes.The trial court joined the charges for a single trial, and the jury found the defendant guilty on all counts. The defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment. On appeal, the defendant argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the joinder of charges, request a limiting instruction, and object to certain testimonies on hearsay and foundation grounds. He also claimed the trial court erred in overruling an objection to a witness's testimony about delayed disclosures of abuse.The Nebraska Supreme Court found that the charges were properly joined as they were "connected together" under the relevant statute, given the overlapping timeframes, locations, and witnesses. The court also held that the defendant failed to show prejudice from the joinder, as the evidence was cross-admissible for proper purposes, and the jury was instructed to consider each charge separately. The court found no merit in the claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, as the objections would likely have lacked merit or the evidence was cumulative. The court also ruled that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the witness's testimony about delayed disclosures. The judgment was affirmed. View "State v. Corral" on Justia Law

Sarah A. Backhaus and David R. Backhaus were married in 2010 and separated in February 2021. Sarah filed for divorce in April 2022. During the marriage, David received an inheritance, which he deposited into a jointly held savings account (account x4020). At the time of their separation, the account had a balance of $323,571.70. David claimed that the funds in the account were nonmarital, originating from his inheritance, while Sarah contended that the funds were marital property.The district court for Douglas County held a two-day trial in March 2023. David testified about his inheritance and its source, explaining that the funds were deposited into account x4020. He also described various expenditures made from the inheritance, including cars, his education, and the startup costs for Sarah's business. The district court found David's testimony credible and determined that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital property, awarding the balance to David.Sarah appealed to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, which reversed the district court's decision. The Court of Appeals concluded that David's testimony was insufficient to establish the nonmarital nature of the funds in account x4020, as it lacked specific details about the inheritance amount, its expenditure, and the account into which it was deposited. The Court of Appeals directed that the funds be included in the marital estate and divided equitably.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The Supreme Court held that David's testimony, along with circumstantial evidence, was sufficient to prove by the greater weight of the evidence that the funds in account x4020 were nonmarital. The court emphasized that credible testimony alone can establish a nonmarital interest in property. The case was remanded to the Court of Appeals with directions to affirm the district court's order. View "Backhaus v. Backhaus" on Justia Law

In this case, the appellant, Keith L. Allen, shot and killed Brett Allen Torres in May 2020. Allen was subsequently prosecuted and convicted of first-degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. Separately, Victoria A. Czech, as the personal representative of Torres' estate, sued Allen for wrongful death and conscious suffering. Czech also sought and obtained an order of prejudgment attachment on Allen’s assets, fearing he might conceal or remove them.The district court for Lincoln County, Nebraska, overruled Allen’s pretrial motions, including a motion for change of venue and a motion in limine to exclude evidence of his convictions. The court also granted Czech’s motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability, finding no material issue of fact regarding Allen’s responsibility for Torres’ death. Allen’s subsequent objection and motion to vacate the order of prejudgment attachment were also overruled.Allen appealed these decisions during the trial (case No. S-23-1037) and after a jury awarded Czech $130,000 in damages (case No. S-24-047). The Nebraska Supreme Court dismissed the first appeal for lack of jurisdiction, as the orders challenged were not final. In the second appeal, the court affirmed the district court’s decisions, finding no abuse of discretion or error in the rulings.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Allen’s motion for change of venue, as Allen failed to provide evidence of pervasive pretrial publicity. The court also found that Allen did not preserve his claim regarding the motion in limine because he did not object to the evidence at the summary judgment hearing. The court affirmed the partial summary judgment, noting the record was insufficient to review the decision. The court also found Allen’s claims regarding the prejudgment attachment moot due to the final judgment. Finally, the court held that the district court retained jurisdiction despite Allen’s appeal, as the appeal was not from a final order. View "Czech v. Allen" on Justia Law