Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant was transporting a large mobile home on a rural county road in Gage County, Nebraska, when an axle broke and the mobile home became stuck, obstructing the roadway for nearly a week. Despite attempts to remove the obstruction, the defendant was unsuccessful, and the Gage County sheriff’s office ultimately hired an excavation company to clear the road, incurring a $15,000 expense. The obstruction did not cause any physical damage to the road, and the expense was solely for removal and disposal. The defendant pled no contest to obstructing a public road under Nebraska law, and the county court ordered him to pay $15,000 in restitution to the sheriff’s office.Upon appeal to the District Court for Gage County, the defendant challenged the restitution order, arguing that the relevant Nebraska statute did not authorize criminal restitution for such expenses and that the county court had not considered his ability to pay. The district court affirmed the county court’s determination that restitution was authorized under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 29-2280, reasoning that the expenses incurred were a loss sustained by the victim as a direct result of the offense. However, it found merit in the argument regarding ability to pay, vacated the restitution order, and remanded for a hearing on that issue.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the statutory authority for criminal restitution de novo, holding that the restitution statutes must be strictly construed and only authorize restitution for actual physical injury or property damage or loss, as defined by Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 29-2280 and 29-2282. The Court concluded that the expenses incurred by the sheriff’s office did not constitute property damage or loss within the meaning of the statutes. As a result, the Court affirmed the district court’s vacation of the restitution order, but on the grounds that restitution was not authorized by statute, and remanded with directions to vacate the order in its entirety. View "State v. Carpenter" on Justia Law

The parties in this case are former spouses who have been engaged in litigation over their divorce for several years. After the Sarpy County District Court entered a divorce decree in 2023, including a parenting plan, the party awarded sole physical custody sought enforcement of several provisions, alleging that the other party had failed to pay a court-ordered equalization payment, attorney fees, and his share of medical expenses for their children. She also alleged violations of the parenting plan, such as improper transportation arrangements, preventing communication with children, failure to administer medication, unauthorized travel, and exceeding allotted parenting time. The other party claimed inability to pay, disputed some allegations, and asserted misunderstandings regarding the parenting plan.The Sarpy County District Court held an evidentiary hearing, found the party in violation of its orders, and determined his testimony was not credible, particularly regarding his financial situation and explanations for his conduct. As a result, the court found him in willful contempt, ordered a 90-day incarceration which could be avoided by compliance ("purge" conditions), temporarily reduced his summer parenting time, and awarded attorney fees to the opposing party. The party appealed, but his brief contained numerous fictitious case citations and misstatements of law, leading the Nebraska Supreme Court to strike the brief and review only for plain error.The Nebraska Supreme Court found no plain error in the district court’s findings or sanctions. It clarified that self-represented litigants must adhere to the same standards as attorneys and that submission of briefs with fabricated citations is sanctionable. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s contempt order, the imposition of attorney fees, denial of in forma pauperis status, and the other sanctions. The district court’s order was affirmed. View "Shannon v. Shannon" on Justia Law

Edward Robinson, Jr. was convicted by a jury in 2004 of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, stemming from the shooting of Herbert Fant outside a fast-food restaurant. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of Joe Lockett, the sole eyewitness who identified Robinson as the shooter. Lockett’s credibility was challenged at trial, particularly regarding his criminal history and possible motives for cooperating with the State. Despite these attacks on Lockett’s credibility, Robinson was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment, with an additional consecutive sentence for the weapons charge.Robinson appealed his convictions to the Nebraska Supreme Court twice, first on direct appeal and then following denial of postconviction relief by the District Court for Douglas County. Both times, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury’s verdicts. In 2019, Robinson filed a pro se motion for a new trial based on affidavits, including one from Lockett recanting his trial testimony. In 2023, Robinson, now represented by counsel, filed an amended motion for a new trial, again relying on Lockett’s recantation and additional affidavits attacking Lockett’s credibility. The District Court for Douglas County denied the amended motion without holding an evidentiary hearing.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the District Court’s denial de novo. It held that Robinson was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing because his motion and supporting materials failed to satisfy the statutory requirements. Specifically, the recantation and supporting affidavits were found unreliable and unsubstantial, and the court determined that, even absent Lockett’s testimony, the verdict would likely have been the same. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling. View "State v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The defendant was part of a group that planned to purchase marijuana but instead decided to rob the victim, resulting in the victim’s death. At trial, the prosecution’s key witness testified that the defendant was the shooter. Another witness identified the perpetrators as three black males, while the defendant is white. The defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment and 25 to 30 years for the respective convictions. His direct appeal, handled by the same attorney as at trial, was unsuccessful.Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief in the District Court for Douglas County, asserting ineffective assistance of counsel relating to a juror who allegedly exhibited bias during voir dire and was not removed by peremptory challenge or on appeal. He also claimed that the State failed to disclose implied plea agreements with two witnesses, violating his constitutional rights. The district court denied all claims without an evidentiary hearing, finding the juror claims were refuted by the record and the plea agreement claims were either procedurally barred, unsupported by facts, or harmless error.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It affirmed the district court’s denial of an evidentiary hearing regarding all claims about the juror and the claim concerning an implied plea agreement with one witness, finding the record did not support allegations of juror bias, ineffective assistance, or an undisclosed agreement. However, the court reversed in part, holding that the defendant was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the claim that the State failed to disclose an implied plea agreement with another witness. The court directed that the case be remanded for this limited evidentiary hearing. Thus, the judgment was affirmed in part and in part reversed and remanded with directions. View "State v. Elseman" on Justia Law

The case involves a man who shot and killed his wife during an argument at her home, where he had gone to retrieve his belongings. The incident occurred after a struggle over a handgun, witnessed by the wife’s sister, resulting in the wife’s death from a gunshot wound to the chest. The defendant fled the scene and was apprehended following a high-speed police chase. He was charged with multiple offenses, including manslaughter and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony.The District Court for Sarpy County conducted a jury trial. Before trial, the State successfully moved to exclude the defendant’s proposed expert witness, a crime scene reconstructionist, finding that his methodology was unreliable and would improperly invade the jury’s role. The jury convicted the defendant of manslaughter, both counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and other charges. The court sentenced him to consecutive terms for each conviction. The defendant’s motion for a new trial was denied.On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals upheld the exclusion of the expert witness, concluding the defense failed to prove the reliability of the expert’s methodology under the Daubert and Schafersman standards. However, the appellate court reversed the conviction for use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony as it related to the manslaughter count, vacated the sentence for that conviction, and remanded for a new trial on that charge. The court found that reckless assault, an unintentional act, could not serve as a predicate felony for the weapon charge. The manslaughter conviction itself was affirmed.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It held that the trial court properly excluded the defense expert under Daubert/Schafersman and correctly remanded only the use of a deadly weapon charge for retrial, not the manslaughter conviction. View "State v. Alexander" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with three counts of distributing methamphetamine in Hall County, Nebraska, based on sales made to a confidential informant in spring 2024. Each count carried a different felony classification due to the quantity involved. After initially pleading not guilty, the defendant later entered a no contest plea to one count as part of a plea agreement. The agreement included the State’s dismissal of two counts, waiver of deferred judgment, no habitual criminal enhancement, and a “waiver of appeal.” The court accepted the plea and sentenced the defendant to 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment, within statutory limits, and dismissed the remaining counts.Following sentencing, the defendant appealed, represented by new counsel. He argued that the trial court erred by not fully inquiring into the scope of the appeal waiver during the plea hearing and by imposing an excessive sentence. Additionally, he asserted two claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel: failure to advise him adequately about the appeal waiver and failure to investigate and present mitigation evidence at sentencing.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, first addressing the enforceability of the appeal waiver. The court held that the State failed to clearly and unambiguously establish the terms and scope of the waiver in the record, and thus could not meet its burden to enforce the waiver. The court then examined the excessive sentence claim, finding no abuse of discretion since the sentence was within statutory limits and the trial judge had considered all relevant sentencing factors. Regarding ineffective assistance claims, the court found the first claim (regarding advice about the waiver) sufficiently alleged but not resolvable on the record, and the second claim (failure to present mitigation evidence) insufficiently alleged. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "State v. Delgado" on Justia Law

The case centers on an incident at a large house party in Nebraska on March 31, 2023, where the defendant attended with his cousin. During the party, the defendant approached the victim, asking about marijuana, and after a brief interaction, returned and shot the victim three times. The victim was transported to the hospital but died of his injuries. The defendant left for Michigan the day after the shooting and later admitted to shooting the victim during an interview with law enforcement, though he claimed the victim had first brandished a gun. DNA evidence linked the defendant to shell casings found at the scene.The District Court for Lancaster County presided over the trial, where the defendant was convicted by a jury of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. He received consecutive sentences: 70 years to life for murder and 15 to 20 years for the firearm charge. On appeal, the defendant challenged the convictions and sentences, asserting errors related to admission of evidence, jury procedure, and sentencing, as well as several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case. It addressed each asserted error, including evidentiary rulings, jury procedure, and sentencing, applying the appropriate standards of review. The court found that most errors were either not preserved, not prejudicial, or not supported by the record. Claims of ineffective assistance were found to lack merit or specificity, or the record was insufficient to resolve them. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in evidentiary rulings, jury management, or sentencing, and affirmed the judgment. View "State v. McCree" on Justia Law

An individual Nebraska resident, voter, and taxpayer sought declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of two medical cannabis laws enacted by voter-approved initiatives in the November 2024 general election. He named as defendants the Governor, other state officials, members of the Nebraska Medical Cannabis Commission, and the sponsors of the initiatives. The plaintiff alleged the laws violated the federal Supremacy Clause, improperly delegated regulatory authority in violation of Nebraska’s separation of powers, and were otherwise unconstitutional. He further claimed public officials and agencies would expend state funds and resources to implement these laws, and that this expenditure was unlawful.Previously, before the laws passed, the same individual brought a preelection challenge to the legal sufficiency of the initiative petitions in the District Court for Lancaster County. That challenge was rejected, and the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed. After the election, he filed a new action in the same district court, seeking to enjoin the Governor from certifying the measures. The district court denied his request for a temporary restraining order. Once the laws were certified and enacted, he amended his complaint several times, ultimately alleging taxpayer standing, standing for a matter of great public concern, and standing under a Nebraska statute governing initiative challenges. The defendants moved to dismiss, contending he lacked standing.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit. Specifically, it concluded he did not have taxpayer standing, as his allegations of incidental expenditures and government employee time spent implementing the laws did not amount to illegal expenditures sufficient to confer standing under Nebraska law. The Court also found he did not qualify for any exception for matters of great public concern. The order dismissing his complaint without prejudice was affirmed. View "Kuehn v. Pillen" on Justia Law

In this case, two candidates competed in the Nebraska Democratic Party’s 2026 U.S. Senate primary election; after the winner, Cindy Burbank, withdrew from the race, the runner-up, William Forbes, sued the party. Forbes argued that Nebraska law required the Democratic Party to nominate a replacement candidate for the general election ballot. He supported his claim by citing statutory language and asserted that, as a longtime registered Democratic voter, he would be deprived of the opportunity to support a Democratic nominee if the party did not name a replacement.The District Court for Lancaster County reviewed Forbes’ claims after expedited proceedings. The court first addressed whether Forbes had standing, finding that his status as a party voter provided a sufficient stake to pursue the lawsuit. On the merits, the district court rejected Forbes’ interpretation of the relevant Nebraska statutes, concluding that while the statutes set forth a process for replacing withdrawn candidates, they did not obligate political parties to do so. The court denied Forbes’ request for a temporary injunction and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of the Nebraska Democratic Party.The Nebraska Supreme Court, upon bypass appeal, independently reviewed the district court’s findings. It affirmed that Forbes had standing. On the statutory interpretation, the court held that Nebraska law gives political parties discretion whether to nominate a replacement candidate after a withdrawal; the statutes do not create a mandatory obligation. The court reasoned that harmonizing the statutory language most naturally allows parties to choose whether to fill a vacancy, and if so, mandates the process to follow. Accordingly, the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding that Forbes’ claim lacked merit. View "Forbes v. Nebraska Democratic Party" on Justia Law

Sponsors of a ballot initiative in Nebraska sought to have their proposed constitutional amendment, which would protect the powers of initiative and referendum, placed on the November 2026 general election ballot. The initiative aimed to require a four-fifths vote of the Legislature to amend, repeal, or impair laws enacted by initiative after November 2, 2004, and to similarly restrict the Legislature’s authority over laws affecting the initiative and referendum process itself. It also imposed a requirement that any laws facilitating or safeguarding the process advance a compelling state interest by the least restrictive means and prohibited legislative acts that would condition, restrict, burden, or impair these reserved powers.After the sponsors collected sufficient signatures, the Nebraska Secretary of State reviewed the measure. Following an objection by a current and a former state senator, the Secretary determined that the initiative violated Nebraska’s constitutional single subject rule and announced that he would not place it on the ballot.The sponsors filed an emergency application for a writ of mandamus directly with the Nebraska Supreme Court, asking the court to compel the Secretary to certify the initiative for the ballot. The Secretary argued that he was obligated to withhold ballot placement because the initiative contained more than one subject, contrary to the Nebraska Constitution. The Nebraska Supreme Court, exercising original jurisdiction, reviewed the matter de novo as a question of law.The Nebraska Supreme Court held that the proposed initiative violated the single subject rule because it addressed at least two distinct subjects: limiting legislative power over both the initiative process and the substance of laws enacted by initiative. The court concluded that these subjects were not naturally and necessarily connected. Accordingly, the court denied the writ of mandamus and dissolved its alternative writ, holding that the Secretary had no duty to place the initiative on the ballot. View "State ex rel. Davis v. Evnen" on Justia Law