Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of several felonies for which he was serving probation. When Defendant’s probation officer conducted an investigation of Defendant's residence, the officer discovered an extensive knife and sword collection lining the walls of Defendant’s bedroom. After a subsequent search of Defendant’s residence by law enforcement officers, Defendant was charged with and convicted of violation of Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-1206, possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person, and sentenced to two years’ probation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant lacked standing to assert that section 28-1206 was vague because his conduct clearly violated the statute; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress; (3) the district court did not err in not instructing the jury on the offense of entrapment; (4) the district court did not err in denying Defendant’s motion for a mistrial; and (5) sufficient evidence supported Defendant’s conviction. View "State v. Green" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with assault while being incarcerated and of being a habitual criminal. Approximately one year later, Defendant filed his first motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled the motion. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant subsequently filed a second motion to discharge on speedy trial grounds. The district court overruled Defendant’s motion, concluding that the State had twenty-eight days remaining to bring Defendant to trial. The court of appeals affirmed. The State petitioned for further review, contending that additional days should be excluded from the speedy trial calculation because of Defendant’s allegedly frivolous motion to discharge. The Supreme Court held that Defendant waived his statutory right to a speedy trial by filing unsuccessful motions to discharge that necessitated continuing trial beyond the statutory six-month period. View "State v. Mortensen" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s convictions and sentences, holding (1) the district court did not err in admitting evidence regarding the content of certain text messages because the text message evidence satisfied the authentication requirement; (2) the district court did not commit plain error when it overruled Defendant’s motions for a directed verdict; and (3) there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant’s convictions. View "State v. Elseman" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Defendant pled guilty to two counts of second degree murder and one count of use of a weapon to commit a felony. The district court sentenced Defendant to life imprisonment on both murder convictions and to ten to twenty years in prison on the weapon conviction, with the sentences to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed the sentences. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied postconviction relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in finding that Defendant's trial counsel rendered effective assistance. View "State v. Fester" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err when it (1) allowed a witness to assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to avoid testifying at trial; (2) denied Defendant's request to grant the witness use immunity to allow him to testify in Defendant's defense; (3) declined to admit the witness' recorded statement to police under a hearsay exception; (4) did not deny Defendant a complete defense by making the foregoing rulings; and (4) overruled Defendant's motion for a mistrial and his motion for a new trial. View "State v. Phillips" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal, holding (1) under the totality of the circumstances, the district court did not err in overruling Appellant's motions to suppress the eyewitness identifications of two witnesses and in subsequently allowing both witnesses to make in-court identifications of Appellant, as the identifications of both witnesses were reliable; and (2) the district court did not err when, in its articulation of its factual findings, it overruled Appellant's motions to suppress the eyewitness identifications. View "State v. Jones" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and use of a weapon to commit a felony for the killing of his mother. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief, which the district court denied without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the jury instructions, taken as a whole, correctly stated the elements of the crime, and therefore, Appellant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance for failing to object to the instructions; (2) Appellant failed to identify an expert who would have opined differently on Appellant's insanity, and therefore, Appellant's trial counsel did not provide ineffective assistance by failing to obtain an additional expert opinion as to Appellant's sanity at the time of the killing; and (3) the arguments Appellant asserted were omitted by appellate counsel lacked merit. View "State v. Fox" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ninety-six to 150 years. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions and sentences, holding, inter alia, that the district court did not err in (1) refusing to sever Defendant's trial from his codefendant's; (2) allowing the State to introduce evidence of gang membership and prior bad acts without a hearing; (3) allowing the State to introduce hearsay evidence under the excited utterance exception to hearsay; (4) overruling Defendant's motions for mistrial; and (5) admitting post mortem photographs depicting the victim's face with a fatal wound, as the admission was not unfairly prejudicial to Defendant. The Court also held that there was sufficient evidence to support Defendant's convictions and that Defendant's speedy trial rights were not violated. View "State v. Smith" on Justia Law

After a joint jury trial with his codefendant, Defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment plus ninety-six to 150 years. The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that the district court did not err in (1) failing to sever Defendant's trial from his codefendant's, as Defendant was not prejudiced by the joint trial; and (2) allowing the jury to separate without obtaining a voluntary, knowing, and intelligent waiver of Defendant's right to sequester the jury, as the district court met the requirement that the defendant expressly agrees to waive sequestration. View "State v. Foster" on Justia Law

Freeholders filed successfully filed petitions to move their property from the Prague Public School District to the Wahoo Public School District. East Butler County School District objected to the petitions because East Butler and the Prague District had a petition pending before the State Committee for the Reorganization of School Districts involving a proposed merger plan that encompassed the Freeholders' property. The Supreme Court concluded that East Butler had standing to appeal the Board's decision and remanded. On remand, the district court determined that the Board had jurisdiction over the Freeholders' petitions, thus rejecting East Butler's argument that the Reorganization Committee had exclusive jurisdiction to act in the matter under the "prior jurisdiction rule." The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior jurisdiction rule, if adopted, did not apply to this case, and thus the Board had jurisdiction over the freeholder petitions. View "Butler County Sch. Dist. v. Freeholder Petitioners" on Justia Law