Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to fifty years to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. Defendant later filed a motion for postconviction relief, arguing that his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court’s decision to deny Defendant an evidentiary hearing on his claim that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the admission of certain exhibits; and (2) affirmed the decision of the district court in all other respects. Remanded. View "State v. Huston" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of driving under the influence (DUI), first offense. Defendant appealed, arguing that the county court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress because the warrantless drawing of his blood did not satisfy any exception to the requirement of a search warrant under the Fourth Amendment. The district court affirmed the conviction, concluding that Defendant gave informed consent to the blood draw, and therefore, a search warrant was not necessary. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a blood draw of an arrestee in a DUI case is a search subject to Fourth Amendment principles, and when the State claims the blood draw was proper pursuant to the consent exception to the warrant requirement, actual voluntary consent is to be determined by reference to the totality of the circumstances, one of which is the existence of an implied consent statute; and (2) the county court did not err when it determined that Defendant consented to the search and, therefore, did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress. View "State v. Modlin" on Justia Law

After a trial, Defendant, who is Chinese and only speaks “some English,” was convicted of driving under the influence, third offense. Defendant appealed the denial of his motion to suppress evidence of a chemical breath test, arguing he was not properly advised of his right to obtain an evaluation by an independent physician and additional laboratory testing because, despite an obvious language barrier, the arresting officer failed to ensure that he understood his rights in a language he could understand. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that there was neither a statutory nor constitutional requirement for the officer to advise Defendant of his right to independent evaluation and testing under Neb. Rev. Stat. 60-6,199, and therefore, the officer’s failure to give an advisement in a language Defendant understood was not a violation of his due process or equal protection rights. View "State v. Wang" on Justia Law

The County of Sarpy Board of Commissioners adopted a resolution amending an overlay district zoning ordinance. The revised ordinance exempted properties platted before the effective date of the original ordinance. The owner of nonexempt property brought a declaratory judgment action against the county claiming that the exemption was unconstitutional. The district court entered judgment in favor of the county. The owner appealed, arguing that the court erred in determining that the exemption did not constitute special legislation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the exemption was not unconstitutional special legislation because it did not create a closed class and its application was not arbitrary or unreasonable. View "Dowd Grain Co. v. County of Sarpy" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of two counts of first degree assault, two counts of second degree assault, and two counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) Defendant’s convictions and sentences for both first degree assault and second degree assault with respect to each victim did not violate his rights against double jeopardy; (2) the district court’s evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not violate Defendant’s right of confrontation or his right to present a complete defense; and (3) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it denied Defendant’s motion for a new trial. View "State v. Ballew" on Justia Law

Plaintiff was employed by Defendant, a company providing optometric care, as a clinical technician. Defendant terminated Plaintiff on the grounds that Plaintiff consistently failed to meet performance expectations over her five years of employment. Plaintiff filed suit, claiming unlawful discrimination based upon a perceived disability. The district court entered summary judgment in favor of Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that summary judgment was not proper where there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant terminated Plaintiff’s employment based upon Defendant’s perception that Defendant had a disability. Remanded. View "Marshall v. EyeCare Specialities, P.C." on Justia Law

Defendant pled no contest to one count of aiding and abetting second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to no less than life imprisonment or more than life imprisonment. Defendant appealed, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective and that his sentence was excessive. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding (1) the Court does not reach some of Defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims because the record on direct appeal was insufficient for the Court to do so; (2) Defendant’s remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel were without merit; and (3) the sentence imposed was not an abuse of discretion. View "State v. Casares" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the sexual assault of two girls. During trial, it was revealed that defense witnesses had viewed forensic interviews of the victims. The State moved to strike the entire testimony of one defense witness and to exclude any testimony from two other defense witnesses, asserting that defense counsel had violated the court discovery order and Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-1926, the statute pertaining to victim interviews. Defense counsel responded that he did not have any objection to the State’s motion. The court granted the State’s motion. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of all charges. Thereafter, Defendant brought a petition for postconviction relief, alleging that trial counsel was ineffective for stipulating and advising Defendant to stipulate to allow the witness testimony to be stricken. The postconviction court vacated Defendant’s conviction and ordered a new trial, concluding that Defendant was prejudiced by counsel’s deficient performance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant was prejudiced by defense counsel’s deficient conduct of agreeing with the State to strike and exclude defense witnesses. View "State v. Armstrong" on Justia Law

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