Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1999, Appellant pled no contest to first degree murder. Appellant was eighteen years old at the time of the offense. Appellant was sentenced to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, and Appellant’s first postconviction motion was denied. Appellant filed a second motion for postconviction relief, claiming that she was a “minor” as defined under certain Nebraska law at the time of her offense, and therefore, her life sentence was unconstitutional under Miller v. Alabama. The district court denied the motion, concluding that because Appellant was not under the age of eighteen at the time of her offense, Miller did not apply to her case. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the relief afforded in Miller and resulting resentencing under Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-105.02 apply to persons who were under the age of eighteen at the time of their crimes and therefore did not apply to Defendant. View "State v. Wetherell" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, attempted first degree murder, and other crimes. On appeal, Defendant argued, among other things, that the district court erred when it overruled his motion to suppress evidence obtained from a search of the contents of a cell phone that was among the items of personal property taken from him upon his arrest. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in not suppressing evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone because, while there was not a valid search warrant in this case, the issuance of the warrants was reasonable, and the warrants were carried out in good faith; (2) the district court did not err when it overruled Defendant’s other objections to the admission of evidence obtained from the search of the cell phone; and (3) there was no merit to Defendant’s remaining assignments of error. View "State v. Henderson" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of two counts of first degree murder and two related counts of use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to terms of life imprisonment for each of the murder convictions, to be served consecutively. Defendant appealed, raising allegations of error related to an evidentiary ruling, a jury instruction, prosecutorial misconduct, and assistance of trial counsel. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not err in its evidentiary ruling; (2) Defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct were either without merit or Defendant was not prejudiced by the misconduct; and (3) Defendant’s ineffective assistance claims either failed or could not be addressed on direct appeal. View "State v. Dubray" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued Madison County under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act, alleging that the County was negligent for failing to maintain a vacated county road, causing injuries to some of Plaintiffs. The district court entered judgment against the County, concluding that the County breached its duty to maintain the vacated road. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial. On remand, the district court entered judgment in favor of the County, determining that the County retained its sovereign immunity because Plaintiffs’ claims fell within exemptions to the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the County retained sovereign immunity with respect to its discretionary functions and therefore could not be held legally liable for its inaction. View "Blaser v. County of Madison" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a weapon by a prohibited person. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred in overruling his motion to suppress his confession and admitting it into evidence at trial because his confession was the product of threats, coercion, and inducements of leniency made by police officers. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) police officers misrepresented to Defendant that felony murder would receive a lesser sentence than premeditated murder, but the misinformation did not overcome Defendant’s will and cause him to confess; and (2) therefore, the confession was voluntary and properly admitted at trial.View "State v. Turner" on Justia Law

Appellant was charged with driving under the influence and with failing to yield the right-of-way. Appellant filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained as a result an alleged seizure that he asserted was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The county court overruled the motion, concluding that there was no seizure in this case. After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted as charged. On appeal, the district court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it affirmed the county court’s order overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress, as, under the facts of this case, Appellant was not seized for Fourth Amendment purposes.View "State v. Avey" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of fourth-offense driving under the influence (DUI) and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two to three years. In addition, Defendant’s driver’s license was revoked for fifteen years. Defendant appealed, arguing, inter alia, that the district court erred in denying his motion to suppress for lack of probable cause to arrest because his vehicle was on public property not open to public access at all relevant times. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) the district court did not err in overruling Defendant’s motion to suppress because the arresting officer was justified in approaching the vehicle after observing the driver exit the vehicle and urinate on a tree, which was an unlawful act; (2) the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in ruling that two prior convictions could be used for sentence enhancement; (4) the district court did not err in modifying its prior finding to reflect that Defendant had three prior DUI convictions instead of two; and (5) the district court did not impose an excessive sentence.View "State v. Matit" on Justia Law

Through its power of eminent domain, the State of Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) took real property owned by Leo and Joanna Hike for a highway project. The parties were unable to agree on compensation, and the case proceeded to trial for a determination of damages. The principal issue disputed at trial was the fair market value of the Hikes’ property immediately prior to the taking, which depended on whether the property’s highest and best use at the time was residential or commercial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Hikes for $53,209, which suggested that the jury agreed with NDOR that the property must be valued as residential property. The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict, holding (1) the district court did not commit prejudicial error with respect to the evidentiary issues raised by the Hikes; (2) the district court did not err in instructing the jury; and (3) the prosecutor made an improper comment during closing argument, but the comment did not prevent a fair verdict. View "Hike v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants, the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC), the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, and several members of the UNMC’s staff, in their official and individual capacities, for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging that Defendants discriminated against him while he was a medical student at UNMC because of his chronic and recurrent depressive disorder disability. The district court dismissed the individual defendants in their individual capacities and granted summary judgment in favor of the remaining defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in (1) granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s ADA/Rehabilitation Act claims; (2) denying portions of Plaintiff’s motions to compel; and (3) failing to sua sponte schedule a hearing relating to Defendants’ alleged failure to comply with motions to compel that were granted.View "Doe v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Neb." on Justia Law

Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. The Supreme Court affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed two postconviction motions, both of which were denied. Appellant also filed for federal habeas relief, which the federal courts denied. This appeal concerned Appellant’s latest motion for postconviction relief, which contained five claims dealing with the method of inflicting the death penalty and the State’s authority to put Appellant to death at all, no matter the method. The district court dismissed the petition without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant’s motion failed to state a claim for postconviction relief, either because his claims were without legal basis or because they were not cognizable in postconviction.View "State v. Ryan" on Justia Law