Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The case involved a defendant who was convicted of possession of a firearm by a prohibited person and first-offense driving under the influence. The defendant, who had a prior felony conviction, was found driving a borrowed vehicle that became stuck on railroad tracks. Law enforcement responded, conducted DUI tests, and allowed a passenger to search the vehicle for his keys and phone due to extreme cold. During this search, an officer assisted and discovered a firearm in the center console. The prosecution also introduced Facebook messages, purportedly sent by the defendant, to establish knowing possession of the firearm.The District Court for Lancaster County denied the defendant’s motion to suppress evidence of the firearm, finding that the officer had probable cause to search the vehicle based on the odor of marijuana. The court also admitted the Facebook messages into evidence, overruling objections regarding foundation, hearsay, and the Confrontation Clause. On appeal, the Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, concluding that the search was constitutional under both the consent and automobile exceptions to the warrant requirement, and that the Facebook messages were properly authenticated and admissible.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on the admissibility of the firearm and Facebook messages. The court held that the officer’s search was reasonable under the Fourth Amendment as a community caretaking function, not based on the passenger’s consent or the automobile exception. The court also held that user-generated social media records are not self-authenticating business records under Nebraska’s evidence rules, but found that the Facebook messages were sufficiently authenticated and admissible as statements by a party opponent. The court further found no Confrontation Clause violation. The judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming the convictions was affirmed. View "State v. Falcon" on Justia Law

A woman was involved in a car accident in which her passenger suffered severe injuries. She admitted to consuming alcohol and marijuana before driving, and chemical tests confirmed her blood alcohol content was above the legal limit. The passenger was hospitalized in a vegetative state and died several months after the accident. Initially, the woman was charged and convicted of driving under the influence (DUI) resulting in serious bodily injury, for which she received a sentence of incarceration, post-release supervision, and license revocation.After the passenger’s death, the State charged her with motor vehicle homicide while operating under the influence. She argued that this subsequent prosecution violated her double jeopardy rights. The District Court for Douglas County agreed and dismissed the new charge, finding the two offenses to be the same under the Blockburger v. United States test. However, the Nebraska Supreme Court, referencing Diaz v. United States, reversed that decision, holding that double jeopardy did not bar the second prosecution because the death, a necessary element of the more serious charge, had not occurred at the time of the first prosecution.On remand, the district court held a bench trial and found her guilty of motor vehicle homicide/DUI, relying on expert testimony that the collision was the proximate cause of the passenger’s death. The court sentenced her to probation, to run concurrently with any other sentence. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was admissible, the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction, and that cumulative punishment for both offenses was permitted because the legislature clearly authorized it. The court affirmed her conviction and sentence. View "State v. Lewis" on Justia Law

After the Nebraska Legislature enacted L.B. 77, which allowed concealed carry without a permit and limited local regulation of weapons, the mayor of Lincoln issued an executive order prohibiting weapons in city-owned properties. This order was quickly amended but maintained similar restrictions, including criminal and civil penalties for violations. Several longstanding city ordinances also regulated firearms and other weapons, such as prohibiting weapons in parks, requiring reporting of firearm sales, and banning certain devices and knives. The Nebraska Firearms Owners Association (NFOA) and four individual plaintiffs, all regular concealed carriers, alleged that these local measures conflicted with state law and deterred them from activities they would otherwise pursue, such as carrying firearms in parks or purchasing certain items.The plaintiffs filed suit in the District Court for Lancaster County, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The City moved to dismiss, arguing lack of standing. The district court dismissed the case entirely, finding that neither the NFOA nor the individuals had standing because none had been prosecuted or directly affected by enforcement of the challenged laws. The court relied on federal precedent, including Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, but concluded that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were too speculative or abstract.On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the dismissal de novo. The court held that the NFOA lacked associational standing because it failed to allege its authority to represent its members. However, the individual plaintiffs had standing to challenge the executive order and most ordinances, as they alleged a credible and imminent threat of prosecution sufficient for a preenforcement challenge. The court affirmed the dismissal as to the NFOA and the challenge to the vehicle storage ordinance, but reversed and remanded as to the individual plaintiffs’ challenges to the executive order and other ordinances. View "Nebraska Firearms Owners Assn. v. City of Lincoln" on Justia Law

Nathaniel Deckard, an inmate at the Nebraska State Penitentiary, filed a mandamus action against the Nebraska Board of Parole, alleging that the Board had a clear ministerial duty under the 1971 statutes to provide him with a parole discharge date. Deckard was convicted in 1974 of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, with an additional 10-year sentence for escape, to be served concurrently. He was initially released on parole after 12½ years but had his parole revoked in 1995 and again in 2022. Deckard argued that under the statutes and Board practices in effect at the time of his conviction, he should have been discharged from parole after 2 to 3 years of good behavior.The district court for Lancaster County denied Deckard’s petition, finding that the Board had no clear ministerial duty to determine a parole discharge date for an inmate serving a life sentence. The court noted that the 1971 statutes provided the Board with discretion regarding parole discharge and that the 2018 statutory amendments, which introduced a mathematical formula for determining parole discharge, did not apply to life sentences as they are indefinite and cannot be quantified in numerical terms.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision, holding that neither the 1971 nor the 2018 statutes created an absolute ministerial duty for the Board to set a mandatory parole discharge date for Deckard. The court also rejected Deckard’s ex post facto argument, concluding that the 2018 amendments did not increase his punishment or affect his parole eligibility. The court emphasized that there is no constitutional or inherent right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence and that Deckard’s life sentence precludes a mandatory parole discharge date. View "Deckard v. Cotton" on Justia Law

During a prison riot at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution, inmate Michael Galindo was attacked and killed by other inmates. Eric L. Ramos was identified as a primary participant in the attack and was charged with first-degree murder, use of a weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with evidence. A jury convicted Ramos of all charges.Ramos appealed, arguing several procedural and evidentiary errors. He claimed his constitutional right to a speedy trial and due process were violated due to delays caused by a mistrial and subsequent appeals. The Nebraska Supreme Court found that most of the delay was attributable to Ramos' own motions and appeals, and there was no deliberate attempt by the State to delay the trial. The court concluded that Ramos' constitutional rights were not violated.Ramos also challenged the State's peremptory strike of a Latino juror under Batson v. Kentucky, arguing it was racially motivated. The court found the State provided a race-neutral reason for the strike, which was not clearly erroneous.Ramos moved for a mistrial or a continuance after the State disclosed new evidence during his case in chief. The court found no Brady violation as the evidence was disclosed during the trial and was not material enough to change the outcome.Ramos' motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence and juror misconduct was denied. The court found no reasonable probability that the new evidence would have changed the trial's outcome and that the allegations of juror misconduct were unsupported.Finally, Ramos argued that the district court erred in allowing lay witness opinion evidence identifying him in surveillance footage. The court found the testimony admissible as it was rationally based on the witnesses' perceptions and helpful to the jury.The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decisions, finding no merit in Ramos' assignments of error. View "State v. Ramos" on Justia Law

Aldrick Scott was convicted of first-degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and tampering with physical evidence after he shot and killed his former girlfriend, Cari Allen, in her home, buried her body, and disposed of other evidence. Scott claimed self-defense, stating that Allen had pulled a gun on him during an argument. However, evidence showed Scott had driven from Topeka to Omaha, where Allen lived, and waited outside her house before the incident. Scott's actions after the shooting, including disposing of Allen's body and other evidence, and fleeing to Belize, were also presented at trial.The District Court for Douglas County denied Scott's motion to suppress evidence obtained from his arrest and search by Belizean police, which included his cell phone. Scott argued that his arrest and search violated Belizean law and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belize, and that the evidence should be excluded under the Fourth Amendment. The court found that U.S. law enforcement did not substantially participate in Scott's arrest and search, and thus, the exclusionary rule did not apply.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that the involvement of U.S. law enforcement did not amount to a joint venture with Belizean police, and thus, the Fourth Amendment's exclusionary rule did not apply. The court also found that any error in admitting the cell phone evidence was harmless, as it was cumulative of Scott's own testimony. Additionally, the court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a rational trier of fact to find Scott guilty of all charges beyond a reasonable doubt. The court affirmed Scott's convictions and sentences. View "State v. Scott" 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

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

An inmate, Trever Ballheim, appealed the denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus by the district court. Ballheim was originally sentenced to two different terms: 2 to 2 years for possession of a controlled substance and 10 to 11 years for being a habitual criminal. The district court later issued an order nunc pro tunc, changing the sentence for possession to 10 to 11 years, which Ballheim argued was void as it was issued without his presence and beyond the court's term.The district court dismissed Ballheim's petition without a hearing, citing that habeas corpus is not available for mere errors in judgment. Ballheim contended that the nunc pro tunc order was a nullity and that his sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as it is not a crime. He argued that he had already served the valid sentence for possession.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case de novo and found that the nunc pro tunc order was void because it improperly changed the original sentence beyond correcting a clerical error. The court held that the original sentence for being a habitual criminal was void, as habitual criminality is not a separate crime but an enhancement. Since Ballheim had served the valid sentence for possession, he was entitled to habeas relief.The court reversed the district court's decision and remanded the case with directions to issue the writ of habeas corpus and hold a hearing to determine if Ballheim should be discharged from custody. View "Ballheim v. Settles" on Justia Law

John G. Strawn entered a plea agreement to plead no contest to two counts of third-degree assault. The State agreed not to mention any sexual contact in the factual basis for the charges. However, the county court found that Strawn had subjected a victim to sexual contact based on information in the presentence investigation report (PSR) and ordered him to register as a sex offender under Nebraska’s Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA).Strawn appealed to the district court, arguing that the county court erred in requiring him to register as a sex offender because the factual basis provided by the State did not include any evidence of sexual contact. He also contended that the county court should have made a specific credibility finding and that he was denied procedural due process. Additionally, Strawn challenged the county court's advisement that his conviction might result in a federal firearms prohibition. The district court rejected Strawn's arguments and affirmed the county court's judgment.The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and found no merit in Strawn's arguments. The court held that SORA does not require evidence of sexual contact to be present in both the factual basis and the PSR; it is sufficient if such evidence is found in the record, which includes both the factual basis and the PSR. The court also determined that the county court was not required to make an express credibility finding and that there was sufficient evidence in the PSR to support the finding of sexual contact. The court concluded that Strawn was afforded procedural due process, as he was given notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding SORA registration. Finally, the court noted that the county court's advisement about the potential federal firearms prohibition did not impose any prohibition itself. The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "State v. Strawn" on Justia Law