Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs here were Bryan Behrens, Bryan Behrens Co., Inc., National Investments, Inc., and Thomas Stalnaker. Defendants were Christian Blunk, Berkshire and Blunk, and Abrahams Kaslow & Cassman LLP. In 2008, the SEC filed a civil enforcement action against all plaintiffs except Stalnaker. In 2009, the federal government indicted Behrens on charges of securities fraud, mail fraud, wire fraud, and money laundering. Prior to the filing of the indictment, Plaintiffs filed their complaint alleging that Blunk had committed legal malpractice. Plaintiffs also sued Blunk's former partnership and the firm that later employed Blunk. Both civil and criminal cases were proceeding at roughly the same time. In 2010, Behrens pled guilty to securities fraud. Later that year, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against Defendants for legal malpractice. The district court found the action was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and by the doctrine of in pari delicto. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' suit was barred by the two-year statute of limitations set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-222. View "Behrens v. Blunk" 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 subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, claiming that the State violated his due process rights by presenting fabricated evidence during his trial, and alleging several claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The district court denied the motion without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the following two claims required an evidentiary hearing: (1) that the State presented fabricated forensic evidence at Defendant's trial; and (2) that Defendant's trial counsel had a conflict of interest because of his relationship with the officer accused of fabricating evidence. View "State v. Edwards" on Justia Law

The district court gave a pro se inmate notice of the court's intent to dismiss the inmate's marital dissolution proceeding but identified two ways of avoiding dismissal. The inmate timely performed one of the court's specified actions. Despite this compliance and without explanation, the court dismissed the inmate's complaint. The court of appeals affirmed, reasoning that because the prison previously had denied the inmate transportation and telephone access to the court, the inmate would be unable to attend any hearing no matter how many motions he made. The Supreme Court reversed where (1) the district court abused its discretion in dismissing the inmate's complaint without explanation even though the inmate did what the court instructed, and (2) the court of appeals erred in basing its decision on predictions of future events. Remanded. View "Jones v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver and criminal conspiracy. At trial, evidence of previous drug deals between a confidential informant and Defendant was admitted with a limiting instruction informing the jury that it could consider the evidence only for the purpose of identifying Defendant or to establish motive or intent. At the close of the case, the trial court denied defense counsel's oral motion to give the jury a written instruction on the limited use of evidence of Defendant's prior bad acts. The jury convicted Defendant on both counts. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of convictions, holding that the district court's failure to properly limit the use of the prior bad acts evidence involving Defendant and the refusal to give the jury a written instruction on the limited use of this evidence were reversible error. Remanded for a new trial. View "State v. Payne-McCoy" on Justia Law

After the U.S. Supreme Court declared a campaign finance statute in Arizona to be unconstitutional, the Nebraska Accountability and Disclosure Commission sought an opinion from the Nebraska attorney general as to the constitutionality of Nebraska's Campaign Finance Limitation Act (CFLA). Under the CFLA, candidates for certain covered elective offices and other public officials could choose to abide or not to abide by voluntary spending limits. A candidate who abided by the limits and raises and spent qualifying amounts in accordance with the CFLA became eligible for public funds. The attorney general opined that the CFLA would likely be found to be unconstitutional by a court, and the Commission determined it would not enforce the CFLA. The attorney general was then directed to file an action in court to determine the validity of the CFLA. The Supreme Court found that the CFLA substantially burdened the First Amendment rights of Nebraska citizens and that it was, therefore, unconstitutional. View "State ex rel. Bruning v. Gale" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his Class IV felony conviction under Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4011(1) based on his failure to comply with certain registration provisions of Neb. Rev. Stat. 29-4004(9) of the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Defendant claimed the district court erred when it rejected his constitutional challenges to SORA. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction, holding (1) Defendant had not shown that either section 29-4004(9) or section 29-4011 is an ex post facto punishment either on its face or as applied; (2) the district court did not err when it rejected Defendant's due process challenge; and (3) Defendant's additional constitutional challenges were without merit. View "State v. Harris" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of attempted first degree sexual assault in 1995. The Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA) had not been enacted at the time of Defendant's conviction, but because he was still on probation on January 1, 1997, he became subject to then newly enacted SORA. Defendant was released from probation in April 1997. In 2009, Defendant was notified that he would be subject to life-time registration under SORA. Defendant was later found guilty of violating SORA. Defendant appealed, asserting that SORA as amended violated the ex post facto and due process clauses of the U.S. and Nebraska Constitutions on its face and as applied to him. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it rejected the constitutional challenges that were raised by Defendant in his criminal proceeding. View "State v. Gaskill" on Justia Law

Following a trial by jury, Defendant was convicted of second degree murder, use of a deadly weapon to commit a felony, and possession of a deadly weapon by a prohibited person. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of eighty to ninety years' imprisonment. At trial, two witnesses testified that sometime before the murder of the victim, they had seen Defendant with a gun, and that he carried his gun in his backpack. Defendant argued (1) this testimony was evidence of a prior crime - possession of a firearm by a felon - and fell under Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404(2); and (2) as such, the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to determine whether the incident occurred pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 27-404(3). The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the testimony fell under section 27-404(2); (2) the trial court erred in failing to hold a hearing outside the presence pursuant to section 27-404(3); but (3) viewed in context of the whole record, this error was harmless. View "State v. Freemont" on Justia Law

The two minor daughters (Daughters) of Parents were injured in a park in Omaha City when their plastic sled collided with a tree. Parents brought an action against the City to recover medical expenses and loss of services based on Daughters' injuries. Daughters also brought an action, by and through their parents, against the City for injuries incurred in the accident. Both actions were brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act. The district court found the accident and resulting injuries were proximately caused by the City and awarded damages in both actions. On appeal, the City argued that the district court erred in its assessment of both liability and damages. In her cross-appeal, one of the daughters contended that the damage cap set forth in Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-926, as applied in this case, violated her right to due process. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in Daughters' action and affirmed as modified the judgment in Parents' action, reducing the total award payable to Parents jointly. View "Connelly v. City of Omaha" on Justia Law

Defendant Francis Seberger was convicted of first degree murder. His conviction was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Defendant subsequently filed a motion for postconviction relief, raising Sixth Amendment concerns regarding his trial and appellate court representation. The district court denied the motion without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the decision of the district court to deny Defendant an evidentiary hearing on his allegation that he was not properly advised of his right to testify and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on this single allegation; and (2) affirmed the decision of the district court in all other respects. View "State v. Seberger" on Justia Law