Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In a direct appeal, Tracy Parnell challenged his convictions by jury of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. His two primary arguments attacked denials of his motions to continue the trial and for a new trial. These arguments were premised upon untimely disclosures of opinions of a cellular analyst and relied on "Brady v. Maryland," and a discovery statute. He also argued the trial court erred: (1) in admitting his threats toward one of the victims were admitted in evidence by error; (2) his requested instruction on accomplice testimony was refused; and (3) his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance. Finding no merit in his arguments, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Parnell" on Justia Law

A police officer discovered Bruce Rask asleep in the cab of his running pickup truck. Rask was ultimately charged with several offenses including driving under the influence (third offense). A jury later found him guilty, and on appeal, the district court affirmed. Rask appealed, raising six points of error at trial. Finding no merit to any of these claims, the Supreme Court affirmed. View "Nebraska v. Rask" on Justia Law

In 2011, the City of Omaha enacted an ordinance requiring contractors doing work within the City to obtain a license. Appellant challenged the ordinance on various grounds. As relevant on appeal, Appellant alleged that the passage of the ordinance did not comply with the procedural requirements of the Omaha City Charter, that the ordinance placed an unfair restriction on and monopolized the City’s contracting industry, and that the ordinance violated his constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment for the City on all but one of Appellant’s claims. After a bench trial, the district court ruled in favor of the City, concluding that the City was empowered to enact the ordinance and that the ordinance did not prevent Appellant from working on his own property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the City had the authority to enact the ordinance. View "Malone v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

In 1984, the State charged Defendant with the murder of his grandmother for hiring her killing. After a stipulated bench trial, the district court found Defendant guilty of second degree murder. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed on direct appeal. In 2012, Defendant filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging, inter alia, ineffective assistance of counsel, prosecutorial misconduct, and prejudicial conduct by the trial judge. The district court denied the motion after a limited evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief. View "State v. Saylor" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance and sentenced to probation. On appeal, Defendant challenged the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress and in finding sufficient evidence to convict him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as the totality of the circumstances demonstrated that Defendant’s interaction with law enforcement was a tier-one police-citizen encounter, that Defendant consented to the search, and that the officer discontinued the search after Defendant’s withdrew his consent; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to convict Defendant. View "State v. Milos" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences on appeal. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion for postconviction relief, generally alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. The district court denied Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it found there was no merit to each of Defendant’s claims and denied his motion for postconviction relief without granting an evidentiary hearing. View "State v. Starks" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of attempted second degree murder, first degree assault, and use of a weapon to commit a felony. The Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was entitled to a new trial at which the jury could be instructed on the distinction between second degree murder and voluntary sudden quarrel manslaughter. The district court subsequently granted Defendant’s motion for new counsel. Defendant then pled no contest to the amended charge of attempted voluntary manslaughter. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging several claims of error. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing despite Defendant’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel; (2) Defendant’s allegation that the district court erred in hearing his claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel at the hearing on his motion for new counsel prior to his motion for postconviction relief had no merit; and (3) there was no plain error. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After two commitment hearings, the juvenile court entered an order committing Alan L. to the Office of Juvenile Services (OJS) for commitment at a youth rehabilitation and treatment center. In its first order, the court concluded that the State had not proved the necessary conditions for commitment, but the court subsequently found that the evidence supported a commitment order. Alan appealed, arguing (1) claim preclusion barred the State from presenting any new evidence at the second commitment hearing that was available to it before the first commitment hearing; and (2) the commitment hearing violated his right to due process because he could not confront and cross-examine individuals who provided adverse information against him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Alan was not deprived of his right to procedural due process despite the State’s failure to comply with case law for seeking a new disposition or commitment to OJS; and (2) new evidence at the second commitment hearing, which became available after the first hearing, showed a change of circumstances warranting Alan’s commitment to OJS, and claim preclusion does not bar consideration of changed circumstances. View "In re Interest of Alan L." on Justia Law

Defendant, whose native language was Dinka Bor, pleaded no contest to first degree murder. After a colloquy, the trial court accepted Defendant’s plea, finding that Defendant had entered his plea freely, voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. The trial court sentenced Defendant to life in prison. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s plea was voluntary because he could comprehend the proceedings and communicate in English; and (2) Defendant’s counsel was not ineffective for failing to ensure that Defendant understood his constitutional rights, failing to stop the plea hearing, and failing to request an interpreter. View "State v. Bol" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. In this appeal, Defendant's third appeal to the Supreme Court, Defendant argued that he was denied due process by the State’s knowing use of fabricated evidence to obtain his convictions and that his trial counsel acted under an actual conflict of interest during Defendant’s trial and the pendency of his direct appeal. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of relief, holding that the district court did not err in (1) finding that the State did not knowingly use fabricated evidence to obtain Defendant’s convictions; and (2) finding that Defendant’s trial counsel did not operate under a conflict of interest. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law