Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Melanie M., who lived in North Platte, Nebraska, received benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as the Food Stamp Program. In 2014, the Department of Health and Human Services (Department) informed Melanie that it was going to change her benefits. Melanie requested an administrative hearing regarding the proposed changes. The Department informed Melanie that it would hold the hearing in Lincoln, Nebraska and that Melanie could participate in person or telephonically. Before the administrative hearing occurred, Melanie filed a complaint alleging that the Department’s regulations and procedural due process required that the Department grant her a face-to-face hearing at the Department’s North Platte office. The district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the summary judgment as to Melanie’s due process claim, holding that the due process clause did not require a face-to-face hearing at the North Platte office; but (2) reversed on Melanie’s prayer for relief under the Department’s regulations, holding that the regulations required that the Department hold the face-to-face hearing at the local office. View "Melanie M. v. Winterer" on Justia Law

The juvenile court entered an order prohibiting Mother from homeschooling her daughter Moira B. and directing that Moira continue to be enrolled in an educational program as arranged or approved by the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) pending further order of the court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court’s order was not a temporary order, but rather one that affected Mother’s substantial right to direct the education of her child, and therefore the order was final and appealable; and (2) the juvenile court did not err in prohibiting Mother from homeschooling Moira and ordering that Moira be enrolled in an educational program arranged or approved by DHHS. View "In re Cassandra B." on Justia Law

Miah S., a juvenile, was arrested for burglary. Defendant waived his rights under Miranda and agreed to speak to a detective. The next day, two different detectives interviewed Miah about additional burglaries in the area and notified him that the Miranda warnings from the day before were still in effect. Thereafter, Miah admitted to being involved in other burglaries. Ultimately, Miah was charged with seven additional counts of burglary. Miah moved to suppress his statements to law enforcement during the second encounter, claiming they were obtained in violation of Miranda. The trial court overruled the motion to suppress and adjudicated Miah as being a minor under Neb. Rev. Stat. 43-247(2). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the juvenile court did not err in determining that Miah made a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of his right to counsel and his privilege against self-incrimination during the second interrogation. View "In re Interest of Miah S." on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea bargain, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to a term of seventy years to life in prison. The Supreme Court summarily affirmed. Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging violations of his right to speedy trial, to due process, and to effective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s order in part but reversed and remanded with regard to Defendant’s claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to assert his speedy trial rights. On remand, the district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief, concluding that Defendant’s right to a speedy trial was not violated and that the continuances sought by counsel for Defendant were sought only after counsel obtained Defendant’s verbal consent. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in any of its findings. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple felony convictions, including two counts of first degree murder. Defendant was tried jointly with his accomplice. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s identification by the State’s primary witness did not violate his due process rights; (2) the district court did not err in admitting an exhibit showing six calls received by Defendant on the day of the shootings; (3) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motions for mistrial and for new trial; (4) the district court did not err in excluding the statements of a confidential informant; (5) the district court did not err in limiting the scope of his cross-examination of the State’s primary witness; (6) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to reopen the evidence; and (7) Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of counsel either lacked merit or could not be resolved. View "State v. Newman" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of multiple felony convictions, including two convictions for first degree murder. Defendant was tried jointly with his accomplice. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err in (1) consolidating Defendant’s and his accomplice’s trials and overruling Defendant’s motion to sever; (2) excluding statements made by a confidential informant; (3) limiting the scope of Defendant’s cross-examination of the State’s primary witness; (4) instructing the jury; (5) overruling Defendant’s motion for new trial on the basis of juror misconduct; and (6) overruling Defendant’s motion to reopen the evidence. Further, Defendant failed to preserve his claim of prosecutorial misconduct for appellate review. View "State v. Stricklin" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of robbery and kidnapping. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a petition for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without a hearing. The Supreme Court remanded for a hearing on the issue of whether Defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to call a witness to corroborate Defendant’s alibi defense. After an evidentiary hearing on remand, the district court again denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly found that Defendant failed to show he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. View "State v. Branch" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a firearm to commit a felony. The conviction was affirmed on direct appeal. Defendant later filed a second amended motion for postconviction relief, raising the same four claims of ineffective assistance of counsel as he did on direct appeal and thirty-one new claims for postconviction relief. The district court granted a hearing on Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims, along with three new claims, and rejected the remaining claims on the grounds that the claims either had no merit or did not allege facts with sufficiently specificity regarding prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s request for a hearing on twenty-eight of his thirty-five grounds for post-conviction relief. View "State v. Cook" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony escape. In an amended information, Defendant was also charged with being a habitual criminal. The trial court convicted Defendant of escape and sentenced him as a habitual criminal. Defendant appealed, arguing (1) the habitual criminal statute was unconstitutional on its face and as applied, (2) the State’s motion to amend the information was untimely, and (3) his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant did not raise the alleged untimeliness of the State’s amendment to the information in the proceedings below, he waived that objection, and Defendant was not prejudiced when the trial court allowed the amendment; (2) the habitual criminal statutes do not violate the right to a jury trial or double jeopardy protections under the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions; and (3) the application of the habitual criminal enhancement and the resulting sentence was neither excessive or disproportionate, nor cruel and unusual. View "State v. Johnson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of third degree assault of an officer and one count of possession of a controlled substance. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence gathered by a law enforcement officer, as the evidence was obtained in accordance with the protections set forth under the Fourth Amendment; and (2) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction of third degree assault of an officer. View "State v. Wells" on Justia Law